|
|
|
|
Shawn
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: July 2004
Messages: 69
|
|
|
Timmy, do you love your country? I bet you do. I love mine. So, I can't agree that this video is awesome. Bush is not America. Everyone in America is not like Bush. But then, this video wasn't just talking about Bush. It was slamming America and Americans. You are certainly allowed to have your opinion, and we will just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I find the video amusing and awesome. It is hilarious and hugely offensive. It may even be a satire produced by an American. It is most assuredly not to be taken seriously.
Do I love my country? No. I live in it. I do not appreciate my government, nor do I much appreciate many of my fellow countrymen. http://www.chavscum.co.uk/ shows one reason why. I would not fight "for my country", though would and do fight to seek to retain my freedoms, all of which are being eroded by my government and by imposition internationally by the government of the USA.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: July 2004
Messages: 69
|
|
|
thanks, I think I understand you much better now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> I find the video amusing and awesome. It is hilarious and hugely offensive. It may even be a satire produced by an American. It is most assuredly not to be taken seriously.
>
> Do I love my country? No. I live in it. I do not appreciate my government, nor do I much appreciate many of my fellow countrymen. http://www.chavscum.co.uk/ shows one reason why. I would not fight "for my country", though would and do fight to seek to retain my freedoms, all of which are being eroded by my government and by imposition internationally by the government of the USA.
I just have to agree with that 100% and no reservations !
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Most Englishmen do not hold their nation, nor its leaders, in a place of reverence,you see. We have a long tradition of poking our leaders hard. I suspect this comes from the security of many centuries of history.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree, I watched your Parliament in session on the British TV channel. Quite a show.
I love the word awesome, I once saw a giant turd floating down the river, it too was awesome. The production level of this film was also awesome and had a bit of the same smell I remember....what was that scent called...I know it was a four letter word... :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I think we may be highlighting several major differences between thre US and the UK in addition to the language we speak
One is that the UK has long used a tradition of satire and irony to look at itself and to see how we are seen by the rest of the world. This was even the case in "Punch" (magazine) during the WW2. We see stuff for what it is, look at the alleged values behind it and make our own determination
Another is that we are not willing to accept our nation "right or wrong". The latest farago against Iraq showed that we resisted our leader going to war very strongly and even tried to make his re-election an issue of our lack of trust of him (He and his party were re-elected because there was no credible opposition, not because we actually trust him). While we supported our forces once committed, we did not support our leader who had committed them.
Yet another is the difference in sense of humour. We see such videos as funny, often especially because they attack. It seems that my US friends see the attack first and fail to laugh at the source.
Stepping away from that, I think the only nation that comes out of the video with no credit at all is........ North Korea! Now I ask myself who really produced the video. If the North Koreans, then it reflects the world's opinion of the odd little dangerous nation in Asia. If someone not the North Koreans, then it is someone who wants to discredit North Korea.
In both cases North Korea is harmed. The USA is left with honour intact. The challenge the USA has is when its citizens see the video as simply offensive without seeijng the irony in the video, and when they react against the message without seeing the deeper issues that surround it. At that point and only at that point is the USA harmed as a nation. And that is, in part, the irony.
I think we need to remember that "Political Correctness" started with a sketch on a US show as a satire. Regrettably it caught on! To me that is hugely ironic and thus funny. The great majority of people have never seen that sketch. Instead they have espoused political corectness. It is, I suppose, unsurprising in that case that the irony of this video has been missed.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The USA has centuries of history as well........
First there are the Native Americans...... whom were nearly totaly decimated by the europeans (not the least of which were brittish) that deemed this land theirs..... manifest destiny..... Yeah,,,, well.....
Then the fact that basicaly, the centuries of european history that caused the swelling of migrant populations here which were caused by opression of various sorts there.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Now that was confusing, it seems that the video was originally from North Korea, however the dialogue at the beginning was Japanese and sounded like the kind of narrator that would be used on a Japanese variety show where they just put strange clips on the show to make people go "WTF?", then it was translated into English on top of the Japanese. I can't deny the "fucking USA" bit, though 
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said "The challenge the USA has is when its citizens see the video as simply offensive without seeijng the irony in the video, and when they react against the message without seeing the deeper issues that surround it. At that point and only at that point is the USA harmed as a nation. And that is, in part, the irony."
As I recall as boy of ten, the Brit's didn't notice offences that Hitler was committing in Germany and other occupied countries, but instead made jokes about paper hanger's "goose Stepping" brown shirts. Too bad they didn't see the deeper issues before signing up for "Peace in our time."
1939 released that evil, that time allowed to gain strength, and the irony is your attitude almost cost you your nation. I react to lies about my country, even if the lies are in a very badly produced cartoon. What really hurts me, is having our "friends" show such crap on their TV, where a few gullable adults and small children may believe that, I as an American am a evil killer, intent on destroying mankind. >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I suspect you mistake British gallows humour for real attitudes, you know. For example you are about to see a great deal of black humour about the London incident. I predict it will start this evening.
If one looks at the interesting point about Hitler and the atrocities he and his regime were committing, one might also argue that the USA was, once again, late, and only intervened when overwhelming perosnal interest was involved, and when it could not stay out of it because of the Japanese.
As for "Peace in our time", it was a foolish statement, but it bought time. You will note that we declared war on Germany to defend our friends in Europe while, regrettably, the USA did precisley nothing.
Your nation, like ours, does not have clean hands. We also seem to share a sense of humour like we share a language.
Neither you nor we have liberated Iraq. All that has happened is that a deeply bad man has been femoved and some sort of democracy may have been established. Vietnam was a waste of time, as was Korea.
Patriotism is fine. Truly. And a true patriot questions his nation at all times, seeking to ensure it is in the right morally and not just by assertion that it is.
By the way, the goose step is hilarious. If men were meant to march that way they would be geese. The ability to laugh at things is a fine ability.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
And I'm going to say this bluntly, because I don't know any other way. I hope that Americans reading this will be able to do so with open eyes and an open mind so they can see that it's not an attack against them as individuals. But to me, America is the epitome of most of the things I hate in the world at the moment. America represents the greed of capitalism, the power of the media and the futility of modern democracy to actually help people. All the things I hate about Australia seem to be American in origin and a lot of the things I dislike about myself America is the epitome of. America is far from the only country to have a consumerist media quasi-democracy but as the world's only superpower, it certainly stands out.
America is not its citizens, though, if I meant "the American people" by the term America then it would be a lot harder for me to say I despise it because I love a lot of Americans. Some of my closest friends are American and I definitely do not hold anything against these awesome people just because of their country of birth. Having American friends often makes me even more mad at America, though when I see how their nation, government and society treats them. So many Americans I know are trapped within their system, it is one of the most culturally closed western countries I know, simply because it can be.
So I despise America and I have absolutely no respect for America as the nation it is today. I do have respect for America's history and what is has stood for in the past, but America today has lost the path. Some people say that it is just Bush, but I can assure you that I would only be a little more fond of America were it headed by a Democrat. But Bush and his supporters are definitely one of the big things that is wrong with America today.
That isn't to say that Australia is flawless, far from it and in fact I am pretty damn mad at Australia now, too. Perhaps even more than I am mad at America because I had higher expectations of Australia as it's my country of birth. I'm mad at the UK, too and I'm definitely pretty mad at a lot of Middle Eastern countries; Fundamentalist Islam is every bit as bad and worse than Fundamentalist Christianity. But I do believe it is a Christian saying that one should "cast out the beam in thine own eye before trying to remove the spec in thy neighbours". The Middle East does not much impact Australia nor Australian government- America does. Some Americans don't realise the impact their nation has globally, but the Presidential election was of second most importance to me after only Australia's own elections. So while I am trying to fight things at home I need to also be fighting things abroad because of the web of inter-relationship that has been weaved with America in the middle. America needs to remember that with great power comes great responsibility.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well......
The whole is a makeup of it's various parts.
That being said I have to say that America IS it's citizens.
If the people you knw are TRAPPED within this system then either they have to develop a sense of initiative and make the changes their meager lives yearn for or relocate to whatever panacea you or they deem suitable.
Life is what you make it...... and what I make of it as well.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow!
The thing is, I pretty much agree with you (substituting England for Australia where appropriate: (not UK as Scotish culture is very different) - I think my MP has got bored with my letters as I haven't had an answer to either of the ones I've written this year ...).
I try not to think of all these issues at once, or I get too wound up and despondent.
I try to concentrate on my American pals, and the force for change that they may represent.
I try - oh I try - to spent more of my time on local small-scale issues where I can make a visible difference (if only to cheer myself up a bit sometimes).
I remind myself, as you say,
> So many Americans I know are trapped within their system, it is one of the most culturally closed western countries I know, simply because it can be.
but I can't supress a nagging feeling that in an age of global communications the lack of awareness of other societies and views represents a wilful act, by the culture and the media if not the people.
Bur I find it very difficult when good honest educated well-intentioned Americans are genuinely upset and angry to discover that their country is not universally loved and admired ... it so often seems a shattering of innocence rather than an enlightenment of ignorance.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Americans never expected to be universally loved and admired. We would love to live our lives in peace and quiet. We never expect anything, not even help from our friends and neighbors when disaster strikes us.
We pay our taxes, knowing that a great deal of it is going to be spent giving aid to those that hate us, but even those people need help now and then.
We also never expected to be hated by people who say they love and respect some Americans so much. We are all pretty much alike. Americans are Americans and often we disagree with our government as in the riots of the 60's. We, meaning the majority most often stand behind our government, not right or wrong as I have heard on this board, but because we fill it's right about a particular issue.
Disagreeing with your government doesn't make you good or bad, it just means you are disagreeable when things don't go your way. If it boosts your ego to boast of disagreeing with the majory that elected your government...enjoy! Please don't love me, I'm retired, on a fixed income and can't afford it. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim wrote:
> ... We would love to live our lives in peace and quiet. ...
I'm sure this is true of most Americans - it certainly is of the ones that I'm proud to call friends. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it's true of America as a country / political entity on a global stage: I wish it were.
> Disagreeing with your government doesn't make you good or bad, it just means you are disagreeable when things don't go your way. If it boosts your ego to boast of disagreeing with the majory that elected your government...enjoy!
That felt a bit personal. Pity.
The current UK government was elected by around a third of the electorate - this is not by any stretch of anyone's imagination "a majority" (although our entirely unrepresentative system has given one party a massive majority in seat numbers in the UK House of Commons). And the Upper House is now largely composed of people appointed without consultation by the party in power. Local MP's - at least mine - are failing in basic constituency duties. Nevertheless, I personally remain committed to working within the remnants of our democratic heritage : my understanding of that is that I feel free to express my own point of view and seek to persuade others. I accept it works both ways: I have been in the position of having held a political elected position and had to listen to and take into account the views of those who elected me.
> Please don't love me, I'm retired, on a fixed income and can't afford it.
I tried to keep personalities out of my post on this subject (and rather think others did too). And it's entirely irrelevant that as from next month I will be retired early on a low fixed income due to disability..and I have no objection whatsoever to being loved (although actually I would prefer to be respected as a unique human being).
-------------------------
It is, of course, possible that I am over-sensitive at present. I had a really shitty night last night - yesterday's atrocities were preying on my mind, reminding me all too vividly of my own experiences dealing with the distressed and homeless, the emergency services, the media, and the merely curious, after the Ealing Broadway bomb a couple of years ago. And this morning I learned that an acquaintance (a British Muslim, as it happens) was among those injured yesterday (although he was not kept in overnight - just treated and discharged). Tonight is equally shitty - or I would not still be awake at 0440 UK time.
all of the above just my own point of view, as always. "Your mileage may vary" ... I'm sure it will.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said: "If one looks at the interesting point about Hitler and the atrocities he and his regime were committing, one might also argue that the USA was, once again, late, and only intervened when overwhelming personal interest was involved, and when it could not stay out of it because of the Japanese." And then he added, "You will note that we declared ware on Germany to defend our friends in Europe while, regrettably, the USA did precisely nothing.
The United States had no Mutual Defense Treaties with any European nation after the First World War. In fact, there was a strong "America First" movement wanting us to stay out of any entanglements, (Not unlike the attitude of the British today) especially any European wars, since only 21 years had passed after the last one.
Is this the place where "the USA was once again late"? While I'm thinking about it, when were we late before?
The U.S. Government did everything it could to help your cause with aid and the Lend Lease of war materials. It was taking a strong chance of not being reelected, (Not unlike Blair, as you stated.) but they did what they could, without bringing us into another European war.
Many Americans went to England and volunteered to serve with your military, because they believed in your cause. When the Japanese did attack us, we didn't start fighting a one front war, but put as much, if not more, effort into fighting with you against the Germans than we did fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.
Timmy added: "...Neither you nor we have liberated Iraq. All that has happened is that a deeply bad man has been removed and some sort of democracy may have been established. Vietnam was a waste of time, as was Korea."
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but only time will tell us if they achieve a true democracy or just a "sort" of one. They have, after all been at it for only a few months, with factions that have been warring with each other for hundreds of years.
If we could somehow go back in time...we cold try not going into Korea and Vietnam to halt the spread of Communism and check out if it was a waste of time. Communism seems to be on the decline, and even China has made some reforms to appease the people. I guess it all comes down to either, do you want to draw a line in the sand, or go for "peace in our time" the consequences be damned.
I'm glad you like us Timmy, I hate to think what you would be like if you didn't...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must agree that a don't understand your government very well and am sorry you are being governed by a minority. Is this because two thirds did not choose to vote, or some kind of skullduggery? If people choose not to vote, then they deserve whatever kind is elected. We have a rather poor turnout here sometimes too. I watch your Parliament in action on the tube and they seem to have a jolly goodtime.
Sometimes I wish we were not such a world power, but when I think of some of the alternatives, I'm kind of glad we are. You Brit's did a smashing job for a few hundred years, and were driven out of few places I will not mention. Oh, I might be getting personal again, you'll have to remind me NW when I do that...I'm just one of those yanks you know.
I agree with you that persuasion is the way to change opinion. I am sorry you have to retire on a disabilty when I feel you would like to play an active part. I would wish we could agree to disagree, but I am one of the hated ones and refuse to be persuaded I'm hated justly.
:-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim wrote:
> I would wish we could agree to disagree, but I am one of the hated ones and refuse to be persuaded I'm hated justly.
>
You do seem intent on making this personal.
There is a very clear distinction to be drawn between the attitudes & actions of a group of humans, and the attitudes & actions of the individuals comprising that group. This is as true in politics and in theatre audiences, as it is in lynch mobs, armies, churches, and much else. The whole may have a completely different character from the sum of the parts. I have worked in both politics and theatre in my time, encouraging precisely the desired shift to a "group" feeling over the individual outlooks, and know this to be true. It is particularly true at the level of countries, where the input and influence of trans-national companies plays a major and complicating role.
If you are unable to distinguish between America as an economic/political unit and yourself, I suppose you will from time to time feel hated. But really, it is not personal in that sense.
I do not really suppose, either, that the "joke" about Islamic Headgear that you posted (less than 24 hours after the bombs in London went off) was intended to show hatred towards the British Muslims injured in the bombings, or towards the London kids who have today had stones thrown at them because of their religious beliefs, or towards those of us who relish diversity and will fight as hard as we can to keep London a truly vibrant, welcoming and multicultural city. But for half an hour after I'd read it I was in tears, quite literally, at the level of intolerant incomprehension it showed. So I guess I too sometimes take things personally when I shouldn't.
Clearly, we're not going to agree on this. And you imply (in the quote I opened this post with) that you are unwilling to agree to disagree either. Purely out of respect for timmy and the netiquette he askes us to observe (if, indeed, I have not already transgressed these limits, in which case I apologise to him) I will attempt to refrain from further exchanges on these subjects - unless, of course, they are clearly intentionally derogatory about myself or insulting to others.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
The video was ironic. Part of the definition of irony is that it excludes those who do not understand it and is thus ironic.
Despising America was by no means ironic.
Probably the entire thread had no place here. But I am going to let it stand and see where it goes. We may even get the British hatred and distruct of the French into it soon.
What I find of interest is that a very badly created and produced and possibly authentic video can generate so much "stuff". It obviosuly works on so many levels! The word "works" here was irony.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Actually no.........
This is meerly the normal progression as in a conversational setting where one topic migrates to another.
It is not magic... it's not "stuff"... It's just people doing what people do.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Late? Both world wars.
Absent? Falklands conflict
Illegal? With us in Iraq. Yup we are not blameless. The end does not justify the means.
In addition, defining prisoners as "not subject to the Geneva Convention" and not accepting global protests about that is abhorrent.
I met a republican who justified this as "We don't care how Bush looks to the outside world, we just care what he does for us at home". And he's doing a great job of eroding gay rights among so much else
Alleged men of God pillory the memory of dead gay boys. People like Falwell flourish and are prtected species, though we, to be fair, have Ian Paisley.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I understood the original intention of you posting the video and I was well prepared to have a laugh and leave it at that. Yet it seems (and I want to be careful in how I say this) that whenever America is criticised, even in jest, some people are quick to get on the offensive. Perhaps my post was misplaced or the idea I had in mind was poorly communicated but the basic idea of it was to express my frustration at often not being able to criticise America or even make jokes about America without someone jumping up to defend their country's honour. Because America doesn't deserve that- nor does Australia- nor do most countries I can think of. They deserve criticism, they deserve to be mocked. At the same time they deserve to be appreciated. There are things about America I do appreciate.
I hope I made myself a little more clear.
To me if someone wants to attack the problems with Australian government or society, they are more than welcome to and as an Australian I will probably agree with it but the moment you start attacking Australian culture or the Australian people that is when I believe it is unacceptable.
I'm sorry if things have got a little out of hand and if I have made a mess in your house, though, Timmy. That was never my intention, I, like many here, have strong views, though and sometimes they influence my behaviour a little too much.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Not even America has achieved a true democracy- far from it. Britain is quite far from a true democracy at national level, too. Australia comes a little bit closer. Germany and New Zealand even more so.
It depends how you define democracy but no modern nation gets close to the truer forms of direct democracy as practiced by the Greeks. Representative democracy has its limitations- especially when the media has so much power and when most people are just so damned apathetic.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Americans are being governed by a minority elected leader, too. As are Australians, but here we are less so. Only 21.5% of people voted for Bush in the past election. Winner takes all single member electorates always skew the results in favour of major parties. I'm sure even those 21.5% didn't all want Bush to be President, they just would have rathered him than Kerry. Having two options is never really a fair democratic electoral system. Of course, maybe a non-democractic system is more stable and more can be accomplished but isn't the western world meant to despise dictatorships and be striving for fair and equal democracy?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
It does seem that US Citizens are unduly sensitive about their nation, and seem to be very hurt if anyone even pokes fun at it. Until you mentioned Australia I put that down to a feeling of insecurity owing to the comparative youth of their nation.
It appears that there is something in the psyche of a superpower nowadays that makes it get its retaliation in first. And that holds true in discussion, in fun and in battle.
There is much to make fun of in all nations. The UK is by no mens immune, Aussies take it on the chin and laugh, but the US citizens somehow as a generality appear not to. But why is that?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Well, Aussies share of a lot of characteristics with our British cousins, including humour and attitude towards politicians to some degree. Americans are patriotic and taught to believe in the American Dream whereas Brits and colonists are a little more cynical of their society and nations. Neither way is necessarily better, but I am obviously biased to liking my own way of thinking.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
(snip)
>
> There is much to make fun of in all nations. The UK is by no mens immune, Aussies take it on the chin and laugh, but the US citizens somehow as a generality appear not to. But why is that?
Ive been thinking about this all afternoon, while doing the gardening. I may have some very tentative conclusions. But before I say what they are:
people of all nationalities may find some of what I say offensive. I really have tried not to make it so. I TOTALLY accept that I'm talking only in the broadest of generalisations. But I think timmy (and others) have raised an interesting question.
As regards the US. It is a nation that has always put a strong emphasis on equality - indeed, that's one of the things to be admired about it. The whole 'American Dream' thing. But the notion that one can rise from pauper to President has a downside: there is possibly a tendency to see the apparent status / material position of individuals as representing them as people, or as being an expression of what they're 'worth'. And this must be a pressure, giving rise to insecurities about how one will be percieved.
The UK , or at least England, is the reverse. We never had a revolution. We have a long and thoroughly dishonourable tradition of persuading people to be happy with their assigned station in life.
> The rich man in his castle
> the poor man at his gate
> God made them , high or lowly,
> and order'd their estate.
And it has been a spectacularly successful sales pitch. Many if not most "middle-class" people have no desire to be either aristocracy or working class. Most "working class" people have no desire to be middle-class (although they may desire the label, they don't desire the lifestyle). So, we in England have been encouraged to feel happy with our lot, indeed probably slightly smug about it. (It's often been said that the reason the English make fun of themselves is that they deep-down feel so superior to everyone else that nothing can threaten that perception!). And releasing social tensions through satire - often extremely vicious satire - has been one of the ways that existing social stratification has been maintained.
I don't know enough about Australia to have any idea what might apply there. I suspect that France in some ways percieves itself to be similar to the USA in this respect, but is actually closer to England.
As I said, only the broadest of generalisations. and getting progressively less true. And, genuinely, no offence intended.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush won the majority of the votes cast. Which means he won the majority of the votes of the people who care enough about their country and issues to get out and walk or drive the few blocks to the voteing place...in some cities all you had to do was call, and someone would pick you up and drive you there. In my state I mail my vote in because I have a walking and standing problem. I don't believe this "being ruled my a minority" crap, just because people are too lazy or uninterested to get up and do the one thing they can, VOTE. Try to VOTE the buggers out! Get your friends together and VOTE. If you get enought people to VOTE the way you do, you WIN! You're then part of the majority, and the other SOB's can complain about being ruled by a minority. It might be that some people don't vote just so they can complain about whatever party is in power, and say with a straight face, "I sure the hell didn't vote for him".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Bush won the majority of votes cast this time, but the time before that Gore won the popular vote. First Past the Post single member electorates without preferences make a mockery of the term democracy. In the USA it is possible that someone with 25% of the popular vote could end up losing the electoral college vote due to vote wastage. It's quite disgusting from a psephological point of view. It has nothing to do with people not turning up, it has to do with a severely flawed electoral model. People not turning up just compounds the issue which is why in Australia we fine people that don't show up at the voting booth. There is nothing to say that you have to have to cast a vote once you turn up, but you do need to attend the voting place. This helps the result be more representative but even so our elections are flawed despite preferences in the lower house and quasi-proportional representation in the Upper House.
America's system takes the cake as being one of the most two-party systems in the western democratic world. It needs to be reworked and I DO know of models that would be far more reprensative. There is still a strong desire to keep America federalist which I can respect and understand, so don't abolish the Electoral College- but instead make each state a multi-party electorate with Electoral College votes going to parties proportional to the number of votes they receive within each state. There will still be SOME vote wastage, but it would be far more democratic while still upholding the principles of federalism. It's such a simple fix that should please all parties, except people that believe America is better because it only has two parties. A choice between two assholes is not democracy, though. I did a major paper on electoral systems and democracy so this is something I feel strongly about. There is a need for reform- in Australia, too.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. In my country we have the most liberal of proportional representation systems - almost anybody can get in! This is very necessary in a multi-cultural society, but it doesn't ensure stable government because every government has to be a coalition and the large parties are held to ransom by the small parties who thus have unrepresentative influence. Furthermore, the system does not make it easy to have a change of government because the larger parties never have a majority.
With all its drawbacks, the first-past-the-post system does ensure stable government by one party which can be judged on its performance and it does make a change of governing party possible every so often. These elements are no less essential for a true democracy than is broad representation.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National stuff in the UK is first-past-the-post, and fails dismally.
But the Mayor of London is elected on a single transferrable vote basis, and this seems to be working well: the current Mayor (Ken Livingstone) is seen as genuinely caring about and representing London, even though most Londoners mildly dislike most of his policies ... but strongly disliked one or more of the policies of other candidates. First time round, Ken stood as an independent, but has since re-joined the Labour party.
My own ideal system would be multi-member constituencies, with multiple transferrable votes ... assuming that there's no chance of politicians implementing the fully-participatory democracy that modern technology (voting via internet etc) makes possible, and we're going to be stuck with some kind of representative system.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, but it wasn't by the 3% or app. 540,000 votes first quoted in the press. After many, many, many recounts that the dem. party demanded their popular lead dropped. I tried to find the exact figure, but could only find reports from about 10 days after the elections. Just what I hope will be an interesting aside, and not to rile anyone. The US is divided into counties and in 2000, Bush won 2,434 (78%) to Gores' 677 (22%).
I worked at our neighborhood voteing place for a number of years, and for the primary elections we would have separate ballots for Rep., Dem., Peace and Freedom, Green party, and Libertarians. In the general election all the parties would have the names of their candidates on the single ballot.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what this "first across the post" thing is. Do you know of a web page where I might study up on it a bit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Put simply each area (constituency) that returns a Member of Parliament (MP) votes for the PERSON they wish to return to parliament.
Generally people have PARTY affiliations but this is not mandatory.
The PARTY with the greatest number of members (Simple majority) usually attempts to form a government. It may fail if it does not have more members in total (Overall majority) than other parties.
the Prime Minister is the leader of the party successful in forming a government.
In the absence of an OVERALL MAJORITY a colation may form (the most recent being the "Liberal/Labour Pact" maybe 20 years ago, whcih was a pseudo coalition)
I am looking for sites, but they all so far have an axe to grind and are less than factual. However these two may help:
http://mk.ucant.org/info/ukconst/electoral_systems.html
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_uk.htm
MPs die. Int his case a "BY ELECTION is held and the balance of power may change
Local politics mirrors national elections, but on a smaller scale.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have 3 men runing for MP in your district, Tom, Dick and Harry. Each voter votes for all three, listing their preference as 1st, 2nd or 3rd. One needs to get a simple majority to win, in this case 50+ because there are 100 voters.
Tom gets 57-3rd's/40-2nd's/3-1st's
Dick gets 38-3rd's/40-2nd's/22-1st's
Harry gets 15-3rd's/49-2nd's/46-1st's
Tom is out, but what part of his vote goes to whom? If Harry only gets Tom's 3-st place votes he is still has no majority. Where does he get the extra votes he needs? What happens if Dick and Harry tie on their number of 1st place votes, is there a runoff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
This is not our system. You are quoting a transferrable vote system.
We place one, single vote for one and only one candidate.
I vote for one and only one of the three candidates. There is no second nor third choice.
In the event that the ballot is tied I imagine there are some rules governing it, but the probability, though finite, is small that it should happen.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify and expand on timmy's post:
UK General (Parliamentary) elections are as he describes.
The Greater London Assembley and the Mayor of London are elected on a broadly proportional basis.
Members of the European Parliament from the UK are elected on a peculiar semi-proportional system.
Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected on a mixed system !
and various other levels/areas of democratic government on other systems.
A good summary is on
http://www.ukconstitution.net/politics/issues/Elections.html
Confusing? Yes. But also so typically British!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
As a student of psephology I can probably help you out a little here. The system you described is a preferential system and it can be dealt with in a number of different ways- either by a runoff election, instant runoff or by using the Borda count or condorcet winner. Presently countries like France using runoff elections, Australia uses instant runoff voting, usually the Borda count is used in sports and nowhere uses the condorcet winner, it is more of a theory although some universities use it in elections.
First I'd just like to point out that your numbers are a little wrong. Under a preferential system usually votes are required to number EVERY box. This means that if 100 people vote there will be 100 1st places, 100 2nd places and 100 3rd places- using your numbers there are only 71 1st places so of course there cannot be a majority winner! I'll use an example and explain how different systems would count the winner.
Say 1000 people vote in the follow way (this is obviously a vast over simplification).
499 people prefer Tom as 1, Dick as 2 and Harry as 3.
498 people prefer Harry as 1, Dick as 2 and Tom as 3
3 people prefer Dick as 1, Harry as 2 and Tom as 3.
Under a First Past the post system like the USA or UK each person would only be allowed to vote for a single person, 499 people would vote Tom, 498 people would vote Harry and 3 people would vote Dick. Under FPP Tom has the most votes and he would win, even though 501/1000 people didn't like him, he only gets 49.9 of the vote. The 3 people voting for Dick essentially "wasted" their vote.
Under a Runoff election people do not indicate prefernces either, but the two top candidates are looked at first- in this case Tom and Harry. There is then a second election where people choose between Tom and Harry and the winner takes all.
Under instant runoff voting candidates are eliminated starting at the bottom of the list. So because only 3 people liked Dick he is eliminated, then because all 3 people that voted for Dick put Harry as number 2 Harry gets 3 votes extra votes bringing his total to 501 where he is the winner instead of Tom.
Under a Borda count people get 3 points for being number 1, 2 points for number 2 and 1 point for number 3, so the maths is as follows.
Tom gets (499x3)+(498x1)+(3x1)= 1998
Dick gets (499x2)+(498x2)+(3x3)= 2003
Harry gets (499x1)+(498x3)+(3x2)= 1999
So Dick gets the biggest score and is the winner.
Using the Condorcet system you look at each pair and see how many times one is higher than the other.
So Dick is prefered to Tom in 501 votes against 499, Dick is prefered to Harry in 502 votes against 498 votes and Harry is prefered to Tom in 501 votes, so Dick is prefered to Tom and Harry in the majority of cases so he is the winner. It is a little bit of a complex system, but it is mathematically sound and it does return the most popular candidate.
Basically out of all the systems First Past the Post is obviously the least democratic as you ignore the voice of the majority of people. Runoff and Instant Runoff Voting improve this a little, but the former still is just looking at simple pluralities and Instant Runoff is very mathematically flawed and capable of producing all kinds of weird results. The Borda count is reasonable for producing a middle-stream winner, but it assumes the distance between preferences is equal and it doesn't allow for optional preferencing while the Condorcet method, while complex is mathematical sound, democratic and capable of producing the most liked winner under almost all situations.
Of course ALL these systems are for single member electorates and I'll be making a new post a little later on detailing some multi-member electoral methods. They get even more complex, though.
For more information on electoral systems, though, Wikipedia is the best place to go. Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Voting_theory and see how you go from there. http://www.electionmethods.org/ is also a good resource supporting the Condorcet method.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Change of government is essential for democracy, I agree, however stable government is actually not a democratic principle. Democracy is government by the people, or in the case of representative democracy on behalf of the people. Hence the KEY feature of a democratic system is that the members elected should be liked by the people that elect them. Proportional systems allow for the population to be represented in proportion to how many people like them.
As for the argument about minor parties having an unrepresentative influence, people seem to buy into that argument, but you need to remember that the balance of power is NEVER actually power. The only time minor parties get to call the shots is when the major parties disagree. If the major parties agree then they can railroad the voices of the minor parties. It's only by having over 50% support that a proposal can pass, minor parties cannot do that alone.
In New Zealand where a proportional system is used, it is not only fair, but also quite stable. Stable government is something that can exist regardless of the electoral system used and while proportion representation tends towards being less stable, does that mean we should all go back to stable dictatorships?
Honestly I think Australia's system is quite awesome in one respect and that is the fact that at the moment we have a bicameral system- that is we have two houses of parliament. In the Lower House, the governing house, two-party politics is quite strong due to the single-member electorates used; in the Upper House on the other hand we have a quasi-proportional system allowing for more broad representation. This system works effectively and allows for minor parties to have a say and influence, while still allowing for the existance of a stable, majority approved government in the Lower House. There are some flaws I see in both houses in Australia, but the fact that we have a bicameral system with only one of the houses being elected proportionally is one of the great strengths of Australian politics.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
