very interesting Alex, thanks and welcome!

The best argument about this anecdotal tripe, is to look at P.J. O'Rourke's interview with Colin Powell in The Atlantic this month. It isn't a zero-sum game, and saying hundreds of millions of people all think the same is just too stupid for words.

The greatest problem with The States is they have this platonic ideal of "American" which doesn't allow for contradiction, diversity, foolishness or even arriving at something resembling an honest portrayal. What I seem to get from your article is that nationalism is only bad when it is non-USAian. Nationalism is just stupid, period. And using a smaller foam "We're #1" finger isn't a solution.

If anything, the current situation in The States resembles Europe in the 18th century, where are you going to send your wretched?

We'll send 'em to Canada Jim, misery loves company and most of your posts make you out to be pretty miserable, but seriously;
"The greatest problem with The States is they have this platonic ideal of "American" which doesn't allow for contradiction, diversity, foolishness or even arriving at something resembling an honest portrayal"

Jim, I think that is the picture of the US that you want to see, not the reality, that's my opinion.

YOu take this position of how you see Americans, but I think yyou met a few Americans one time and formed your opinion from that meeting, and then seek to have it validated by what you see on TV, whoich is hardly accurate.

What really upsets a lot of people is that Americans will make mistake, sometimes grudgingly, but move on and try to do better, not cry "Mea Culpa" and withdraw from the world, nor be overwhelmed by the ods and not even try to succeed.

THere is also a little bit of spitefulness in us, that we don't really give a damn for the opinions of those who tried and failed and stopped trying, or never tried at all.

Hell, yeah, I am proud to be an American, not perfect, not better than everyone else, but damn good.

Jim, you said, "The greatest problem with The States is they have this platonic ideal of "American" which doesn't allow for contradiction, diversity, foolishness or even arriving at something resembling an honest portrayal."

I would say just the opposite-- it is some European countries, and even Canada that are shut down diverese opinion.

Whether it's bullying TO the pulpit, as has happened lately or banning books (as in Salman Rushdie's) Canada is one place the 'wretched refuse' wouldn't be welcome.

After all, some of them are seeking religious freedom and some, heaven forbid, may have views more conservative than most Canadians.

Then again, I suppose if they're looking for a gender reorientation, they can always join the Canadian Armed Forces and have it paid for.

As I recall, that seemed more important than keeping Canada's NATO comittment, n'est pas? Not to worry-- the US Armed Forces will supply you with boots.

What I've learned:
1) several USAians have no idea what "platonic ideal" means, which somewhat proves my point.

2) Using generic anecdotes to refute an arguement that you rely on generic anecdotes is just not good enough

3) Read Colin Powell's interview. Learn what a "zero-sum game" is, and why participating in that game is just plain stupid and makes you look just plain stupid. Shouting nonsense louder doesn't make me like you any better.

All you have to do is imagine these people trying these tactics in a meet-market. How do you think this attitude makes you attractive outside the USA?

Jim--

I don't understand your comments. First, you refer generically, to Americans-- then in your last post, you refer to 'SOME' USAians.

Shall I draw my conclusions about Canadains who made it a point of booing American CHILDREN at hockey games in Montreal and Toronto?

As for a zero sum game, I know what that is. I also know that the US is portryed for the most part as 'evil'-- as a survey of Canadian kids (40%) has shown. If that is what is being taught in Canadian schools, isnt that an example of zero sum schooling?

Further, the anecdotes I referred to arent anecdotes, as they reflected actual case law (the transgender issue) and hard facts on the ground. Canada has not lived up to its NATO comittmments and sadly, the once vaunted Canadian Armed Forces are a shell of their former selves. These aren't anecdotes-- they are facts.

Good to know that nationalist bullshit can still be backed up with anecdotal "facts". In that same military-industrial light (which seems to be your biggest concern) I'll see your trans-gender with the Army of 46DD.

This is just nationalistic statist bullshit, and has no place on the internet. Since you claim to know what a zero-sum game is, please explain to the rest of the class what that is, and how you apply that theory to an apple pie?

Please, enlighten us.

I said nothing about nationalism-- you did.

In addition, are you implying what I said was wrong? Are you implying those things never happened? Do we have no reason to criticize Canadian policies re censorship, military, etc? Seesm to me these are assumptions any reasonable person would make, based on the facts. Unless of course, you can argue those facts. Feel free, if you can. Perhaps Al Jazeera can be help in that regard.

As for zero sum games, yes, even you can have a piece of that apple pie.

It's not an all or nothing deal.

Never has been down here.

Unlike other places.

IRONY AWARD OF THE DAY:

An American uses the opinion of one European to illustrate the feelings all Europeans have because they met one Ugly Fucking American.

I'm assuming the irony is lost on the author.

BTW: A better title would be:

"Historical/Sociology/Anthropology For Dummies."

Alex, I hear the Pyramids are lovely this time of year.

MORE INCREDIBLE IRONY FROM AMERICA'S FINEST:

"...If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. We've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom..." --- George W. Bush, Oct 2000 Presidential Debate


I'm shocked and awed.

So in other words, not even Al Jazeera can help help you dispute the facts I presented. I guess that's why you're now resorting to ad hominums. That of course, was predicatble.

Still, perhaps you have something meritorious to add. Perhaps.

So when do you leave for the pyramids?

s You're shocked and awed?

No, not really.

Reality escapes you, that's all.

My point in this endeavor is that neither Europe or Canada, for that matter, have the moral high ground.

Nowhere NEAR the moral high ground.

Jeez! Does the ad recruiting new Blogcritics say 'arrogant, mindless tripe welcome' in a code only Right Wingers can read or something? If not, why are so many of them showing up?

This entry say nothing worthwhile about Europeans. (It is obvious someone does not realize most of the world is not European.) It also says nothing worthwhile about Americans. Instead, we are spoon fed the childrens' myth about a country founded on genocide and slavery being ideal. The grave disparity in income and life outcomes of Americans is ignored. A successful businessman is offered up as Every American, when, in reality, most Americans are wage slaves. Then this claptrap is shoved down our throats:

We won't boycott you, close our borders to you or deprive you of your rights.

Tell that to the countries subject to American embargoes and trade sanctions. Tell that to the thousands of illegal immigrants deported every year. Tell that to the women, people of color and gay Americans who suffer discrimination every day of their lives.

As for people wanting to come to America, that is because of the rich resources of the country -- which existed before any European set foot here. You would never guess that from this self-aggrandizing entry. Given the same economic prospects, most people would prefer to remain in their own countries.

This entry represents American myth trying to masquerade as American reality. Thinking like this is the core of what is wrong with America. Pretending our reality does not exist allows people to support a grossly unfair status quo. Unfortunately for the purveyors of this nonsense, those of us previously beaten or lynched for saying what the reality of America is are no longer completely deprived of expressing our opinions. We will counter these lies with truth every step of the way.

[edited]
The thing is, don't expect the rest of us to act as cheerleaders for your big-time self-esteem fest. In fact, we'd just really appreciate it if you just kept it to yourself.
[edited]

You seem rather picqued.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a moral high ground?

What I said was that Europe and Canada do not have the moral high ground.

I said nothing about myself. Why would that elicit an ad hominum attack?

As for being concept challenged, take a good long hard look in the mirror. I responded to your post with examples of what I belive (as do many others, as is our right-- no doubt a right that you don't approve of and thus reply with with the aforementioned ad hominums))of Canadian hypocrisy. Rather than address the issues I raised in a civilized manner, you seem more content to avoid the issues and attempt to excoriate me.

I do assume you have a mirror. Actually, I'm sure you do.

"Jeez! Does the ad recruiting new Blogcritics say 'arrogant, mindless tripe welcome"

I'm sorry. Do you wish to limit the type of blogers that don't appeal to you?"

As for myths about genocide and slavery, hows does Canada's past treatment of its minorities (aboriginal) make Canadians superior? For that matter, it seems like African Canadians aren't all that well treated in Montreal or Toronto, nowadays, if you read the press.

While I appreciate your promise not to close the borders or boycott the US, I can say with assurance we won't close American car plants and move them down here, even though we need the jobs.

As for illegal immigrants, Canada's seemingly never ending supply of the Khodr family is no doubt an asset Canada has shared with the civilized world. You must be so proud that on og the Khoder's says there are many Al Qaeda trained men in Canada. No doubt they're dance instructors.

What do Canadians tell religious people-- the Bible is now hate speech (by the way, Im not a religious person, so you'll need to take another tack.)? How do Canadians feel about their university libraries lacking in some 'offensive' texts?

The fact that people want to come here has nothing to do with resources. No one comes here with ashovel in hand looking to dig for iron ore. They come here because (unlike the gamble on mining, to use your example) anyone can get ahead-- it's wide open. Look at how many first and second generation immigrants have come here and succeeded.

You are right on one thing. Given the same economic prospects, people would stay home. Trouble is, there AREN'T the same economic prospects. Even Canadian doctors come here, because of the mismanagement of an already broken system. Europeans are suffering a brain drain, as well. Why because the action and education is here. It is here they have a shot, with hard work, to make it.

We don't pretend your reality doesn't exist, as you said. You resent our reality.

As for you last remark, well, lots of us have been beaten up in the past. Blacks, The Irish, the Jews, the Italians and people of every sexual persuasion, as well as everybody else.

We fix the problems-- sometimes slowly, even too slowly, but we fix them. I'm sorry, does that offend you?

Ah, I see you've already had to deal with a three-person tag-team of anti-Americanism as your own personal "Welcome Wagon."

Welcome! ;)

Aboriginals in Canada? Really?

Outside of that you people are just loud, and you elect scary people into places with much power.

And how utterly American of you to state that anti-americanism is really just wanting to be American.

AH and Marvin had the misfortune of coming in at the same time and touching upon a few similar buttons.

This post is very specific, which is good, we complain about generalities, remember?

There is no grand attempt to extrapolate generalities from the specifics of the encounter described, and the end explcitly says anti-Americanism isn't simple and easily reducible.

What particularly disturbs me are these raiding parties on new members in an apparent attempt to drive off those with whom some of us have ideological differences, and then "righteous" indignation when they don't quietly acquiesce and run away with their tail between their legs.

Thanks again Alex, and I look forward to your next installments.

Eric: "...What particularly disturbs me are these raiding parties on new members in an apparent attempt to drive off those with whom some of us have ideological differences..."

1) I don't see that they're being treated any differently than anybody else around here, regardless of their political stripe. And posting essays is a tough business, and writers need thick skin.

2) "Raiding party" implies an organized ad hoc group of verbal vigilantes. Surely that's not what you meant? The one thing we Progressives have in common is our ability to have little in common.

3) I really could care less about the implicit politics in this piece (altho I think they suck); I just think it's a bit amateurish, simplistic, and says very little that is observant or original. I'll call Quality as I see it, regardless of the political affinities. Just ask Whats-Her-Name.

And the irony I mentioned in Comment #9 is still sorta astounding.

In order of appaerance....

RJ, thanks for the welcome. It would have been nice to have the heads up aerlier, but hey...what would blogging be without a few loose cannons?

In any case, I look forward to a long and happy life here on blogcritics....now I shall make an appointment for my helmet fitting.

Bernard, whether 'wanting to be an American' is true for you or not is irrelevant.

The numbers speak for themselves. Deal with it.

As for arrogance, I suggest you consider that remark-- the people who do come here and who want to come here might take offence. Or do they not matter to you either?

Eric, the Rightious indignation' you speak of nothing new. More often than not, it is the refuge of those ill equipped to argue the merits of an argument.

As the saying goes. "Better to raise the level of discourse than to raise your voice."

Shark, you make a fair point. However, rational discourse and fair critique would raise the bar, don't you think? Having access to a megaphone doesn't make the ill conceived message any more relevant.

See my post above, to Eric.

Shark, I agree.

There is a time to use anecdotes- and a time they are irrelevant.

This time, they were relevant, if for no other reason than they encapsulate an overall impression of 'facts on the ground'.

Bernard...you say "Outside of that you people are just loud, and you elect scary people into places with much power.

And how utterly American of you to state that anti-americanism is really just wanting to be American."

Who EXACTLY are 'you people'? And who EXACTLY is so scary?

And how utterly Canadian of you complain about American politicians-- while Canadian politicians are setting the bar for moral baseness and political ineptitude. If you need examples, i'd be happy to provide them for you- you can start by reading my post earlier on to Jim. Plenty more where that came from.

Hmmm...that doesn't appeal to you?

Bernard, clean your own house first. Trust me, there's a stench coming through.

AH, I agree -- but then again -- some points aren't worth arguing. (See 90% of what RJ & Shark post for more.)

And ya pick yer battles.

PS: But don't feel bad, AH, greater minds than yours have asked "Why do they hate us?" and haven't come up with a decent answer.

(But at least they were asking it about the correct enemies.)

Whoops.

Shoulda said "I agree relative to "...rational discourse and fair critique would raise the bar, don't you think?".

I don't agree with bashing Canada and Europe, but then again, I didn't go to the George W Bush School of International Diplomacy.

And no matter how you slice it, the most intelligent, observant line so far in this thread was:

"And how utterly American of you to state that anti-americanism is really just wanting to be American."

Good one.

Shark, the reasons they hate us are irrelevant- they are all petty reasons.

It's the reasons they SAY they hate us gets them into trouble.

Most of us have no problem with Canadians. Some of them however, have way too much time on their hands-- and fall hook, line and sinker for the eurotrash posturing.

Gives 'em an identity, I guess.

Shark, like it or not, the numbers speak for themselves.

Canadian immigration into the US is at an all time high.

Why shouldn't we believe that more Canadians would immigrate if they could?

Are Canadians different from people from other counries?

[edited]
As we learned from the McCarthy era, people do not try to divide the society into those who are acceptable because they toe a party line and those who are semi- or anti-American because they don't as a passtime. There is always a reason for making such distinctions. That reason is an intention to punish those who dissent by depriving them of their voices, their careers or their citizenship. Let's call this effort to discredit some Americans, which the entry refers to as being 'American,' what it really is: fascism. The same kind of effort succeeded during the McCarthy era, but we hardly need to revive that shameful period in our history.

[edited]

Canadian immigration into the US is at an all time high.

Immigrating into the country is usually done because of economic reasons (the quest for the pot of gold) or for civil rights reasons (to escape persecution, and granted I think this reason applies less so to Canadians). One does not usually immigrate into America because they think Americans are swell.

One can want into a country to be part of what that country is about (freedom and prosperity) and still not like American people.

MacDiva. your comments are well taken, though I don't necessarily agree.

I do agree that not all critics of the right or off base-- in fact, is has been said that 'true patriots are the dissenters.'

Stll the vacuity, as you so pointedly observed, did not begin with my critique of a poster. It began with remarks that were clearly offensive to anyone looking for rational exchange. I'm disappointed you saw fit not to menton that.

Also, my upcoming posts are on 'anti Americanism'- that is to say, they are not on anti Americans- there is an obvious and distinct difference.

You said you read my blog-- which is interesting, beause there are very few of what you might call anti immigrant posts. I would hope you'd delve a little deeper into what I've written. There is plenty to disagree with-- though the fact that you may disagree doesn't make a fascist or mythologist. I welcome diverse opinions and ideas that are rational and well thought out, free of the ad hominums.

As for fascism, lets deal with a bit of reality here. Banning books is fascist. Threatning religious organizations with hate crimes is fascist. Not tolerating dissent is fascist.

[edited]

Boom crash, you say "Immigrating into the country is usually done because of economic reasons... or for civil rights reasons ...One does not usually immigrate into America because they think Americans are swell."

Nevertheless, they still want to come here. Despite what I believe to be Canada's open door policy, people, including Canadians, want to come here- far more than anywhere else.

Migh they think that we're swell enough?

The initial premise posed was that there is anti-Americanism out there. That was countered with 'but people want to come here'.

I find that a flawed response. I was pointing out that people can want to come here to follow an ideal, but still not like the people here.

Sharky, I don't think the "attack" is organized but I do see a trend for people (intentionally left as broad as possible) to jump on newcomers with both feet and then sort of back off if they prove themselves to be resilient and able to defend themselves, as has AH here, and Marvin elsewhere. It's rather starkly social Darwinism

Boomcrash, thanks for your post, again.

What I was trying to say-- and obviously did not make clear-- is that there is anti Americanism out there-- supported and propped up by those with a particulat agenda.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. Why would anyone want to come to a place inhabited by people they dislike? Isn't that akin (to use the 'evil American' example) as Jews wanting to move to prewar Germany, simply for economic gain? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Eric, it's cool.

The truth is, good, honest and rational debate serves everyone.

I'm more than happy to engage in healthy debate and indeed, grateful. Truth is, sometimes I learn more from my adversaries and critics than I do from those who I agree with or agree with me.

Why would anyone want to come to a place inhabited by people they dislike?

Economic prosperity and freedoms that they don't have at home, I imagine. I don't think that 100% of the people who come to this country dislike Americans though.

Isn't that akin (to use the 'evil American' example) as Jews wanting to move to prewar Germany, simply for economic gain? Seems pretty unlikely to me

I think that analogy would only be valid if America created concentration camps and ovens. Meaning I don't think immigrants here would feel the same threat that a Jew moving to prewar Germany would.

There is anti-Americanism out there. You are the one who created this blog on the topic, right? Are you now taking back your claim? My perception of it is that Inga and Claus from Slovenia might get tired of boiled potatoes and moldy bread, so they come to America seeking a better life, but they feel that Americans are fat, lazy couch potatoes who maintain their way of life at the expense of other nations. Makes sense to me.

Note: dislike and hatred are being comingled on this thread and they are different.

It's just my perspective. There are plenty of us here who were born in America, who are proud to be American, and who feel that the majority of Americans are self-centered wingnuts who care nothing about the harm they cause in promoting their ideologies. Doesn't mean we want to leave though.

Why would anyone want to come to a place inhabited by people they dislike? Isn't that akin (to use the 'evil American' example) as Jews wanting to move to prewar Germany, simply for economic gain? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Yeah, didn't thousands of Soviet Jews offer to fight alongside the invading Germans? Stranger things have happened.

Boomcrash-- let me quote a recent post from an Iraq blogger.

Like all Iraqis, I hate Americans. Of course. Here is why:

The Americans, although they brought us freedom, acted without authorization from the United Nations. Arrogant Americans

The Americans, although they rescued us from Saddam Hussein, defied the will of many nations. Insular Americans.

The Americans won't leave Iraq, say newspaper reports. Get out, Americans!

Other newspaper reports say the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible after throwing us into chaos. Stay here, Americans!

The Americans spent tens of billions of dollars to liberate Iraq and help it become a prosperous democratic nation. Don't Americans care more about fixing their own problems? Crazy Americans.

The Americans started this whole war because of oil. That is why fuel costs are at record high levels in the US and is cheaper than water in Iraq. Selfish Americans.

The Americans are not using the necessary force to keep Iraq safe and secured. Lazy Americans! The Americans are also using excessive force in Iraq while dealing with the security problems. Brutal Americans!

The Americans support the Israeli terrorist government instead of the good peaceful people of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Says it all. Violent Americans."

'Olga and Inga' could go to Canada. Why do you think they want to go to the US as a first choice?

There were no ovens in prewar Germany-- just alot of rhetoric. That aside, how about this analogy-- it would be Jews moving to Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Libya for economic oppotunity. Is that a better analogy?

I do agree with you wholeheatedly, re dislike and hatred. All too often, they are used interchangebly.

I also agree that there is a malaise of self centeredness. Your right on point there. I'm with you-- I'm staying!

JR, your point is excellent.

I will say this--Jews did indeed fight the Germans, on behalf of the soviets, but there is an interesting notion here: Jews, I tink gravitated towards communism because of the ideal-- "Tovarich"-- Comrade. They were to no longer be a despised minority. hey were finally able to be equals.

Thus, the reality of communism was indeed hurtful to them. They had put much hope ointo the ideals.

Your post raises a fascinating point, not only re Jews, but how support for an 'ideal' can be so powerful and up in such tragedy.

Great Post!

To clarify: When I refer to anti Americanism, I refer to a politically inspired POV.

"Anti-Americanism is not merely criticism of particular policies or of a particular US president. It has become a sort of radical view that the USA is both wrong in principle and wrong in practice, regardless of the endeavor.

It has become a generic, overt attack on America and on American standards, values and approaches, everywhere and in everything."

Just thought a clarification was in order.

"...view that the USA is both wrong in principle and wrong in practice, regardless of the endeavor...."

Gee, I might even sign on to that.

And I think the name of the current manifestation of that is George W. Bush.

Just tryin' to be helpful.

I see, shark.

Well, from where I sit, the Canadian failures in medical care, non performance insofar as NATO committments go, book banning, the intimidating of churches and a myriad of other problems hardly qualify Canadians as moral arbiters of right and wrong.

While we no doubt appreciate your 'help', might I sugest a little house cleaning first? Seems to me that if Canadians cleaned their own house, Canada's moral credibility would be a bit improved.

Like you, I'm just trying to be helpful. Know what I mean? Sure you do!

I do want to add that I enjoyed the perspective in the initial blog. It's interesting to note that there are Europeans who resent us because we are what they want to be.

I think I'm always one to just look further, which is why I see two problems with that, rather than that being a good thing.

First, it gives us an excuse to compliment our actions. We say 'ah! They envy us! We are successful, we did good!' and we feel pride.

(and how many of the 7 deadly sins did that violate? It comes back on us and it comes back via problem 2)

WHY, they resent us for being what they want to be (successful). Because they (and this REALLY applies outside of Europe, in the Middle East, etc.) see our 'success' in the form of their kids wearing blue jeans, idolizing Britney Spears, etc. I think what they resent is our success at creating their next generation, their next definition of culture.

Isn't that possible, and doesn't that change how we should interpret our success? I'm all for global marketing, but we seem to do it with little regard for the cultures we market in.

Boomcrash-

I may surprise you when I say I agree with most of what you said.

I do think however, that the 'noisy opposotion' here pretty much keeps from getting to caught up in ourselves. Whatever our POV, we certainly defend those views vociferously, but take away the bread and I think you'll find most of us are closer in opinion than the 'bread' would have us believe. I do think overall, we want the same things. I also think the 'bread' lunatics are hell bent in exacerbating our differences and formenting the demonization of each other. Therefore, I don't think things are as bad as you imply.

I have spent alot of time in Europe and I do concur-- they want our successes, of course. What they don't see is that our successes are a result of an absolute non regimented freedom. Anyone here can make it, regardless of class or upbringing.

Your point on our successes being interpreted simply as Levis and Britney Spears is a good one. Nevertheless, that comes as a result of free choices made.

Personally, I do think we are shortchanging ourselves by making nonsense and consumption the icons we strive for. I also believe that it is cyclical-- that is to say, as people mature, they move on.

In the end, we still are at the forefront of innovation and technology-- endeavors that have no time for nonsense.

Regarding new members, I mostly use and post to this site for music, video and books. The Etc. column is just 99 and 44/100ths per cent bullshit. Usually USAian polemics, and most of those are just some sort of propaganda arm from a community I have no part in.

So, a hint, if you want to make a launch, start with critiquing and reviewing books, music and video and them move on to the bullshit circus.

After all, the heading post is just like a hemorrhoid, every second asshole has one. Oh, boo-hoo, some USAian jerk is pissed because somebody told him he had bad breath. Get some mouth-wash, jerk.

Jim, might I sugest you use your precious freedoms not to read my posts if they offend your delicate sensibilities.

I understand that as a Canadian who obviouisly concurs with book bannings, censorship and Al Jazeera, dictating morals to churches and the like, you may not understand the concept of free choice.

Exercise it, you might find it refreshing.

As for hemerrhoids and mouth wash, you obviously have some experience in those matters.

I expected nothing less from a man with your experience.

Your point on our successes being interpreted simply as Levis and Britney Spears is a good one. Nevertheless, that comes as a result of free choices made.

Yeah, but I know how marketing and advertising can steer free choices. We should acknowledge that although they have free choices, it's against two competitors that cannot/do not compete equally. Akhmed's Flea Bazaar is not going to be able to compete with the new Wal-Mart in Istanbul for example.

It's a free choice to side with the one who's going to win the race, but a lot of people see it as one person got to start 100 yards ahead of the other.

We've got to accept the consequences for the choices we make. If we shrug our shoulders and say 'it's a free market' to them, we're going to have to accept the anti-Americanism it will bring.

AH

For the record:

I am not Canadian, I don't know anything about Canada, except that parts of it periodically don't seem to want to be Canada and that I believe it to be a cold place.

I am highly European. That is to say I am high and I am European. Dutch, or to put it in other words, from the Netherlands. Semilegalised pot, prostitution, gay marriage and windmills. Non of which I am particularly interested in by the way.

As for anti-american. I love Americans. My wife is one and my two year old son has two passports, one of them similar to yours, the other one similar to mine.

What gets to me in your post is the assumption that anti-americanism has much to do with America. It has much to do with America's position in the world, yes. With America's foreign policy and probably with the necessity of American sanity in keeping a sane world. Which is a bitch. I don't vote in America, but realise that America plays a pivotal role in world politics. I'm not jealous, I am worried. It is the sanity of American policy that is being questioned on this side of the atlantic. Nitwits and other idiots left aside.

So give it a rest. Europe is not really anti-american. Not the Europe I know and love. But I do wish Americans would stop whining about the world not liking them because they are so good and so free and so strong. It gets old fast. So if you want to be free from criticism, don't police the world and stay home. Wear jeans, drink budweiser and do what America does best. Enjoy yourselves. Destabilise the world further than it already was, without a plan how to make it a better place (and by better I do not mean a more steady oil reserve) and then expect the world to be somewhat pissed sometimes.

Dale Carnegie Lives!

Who knew being an abusive, insulting jerk would be cornerstone of introducing yourself to the whole wide world?

Way to go.

And by high, I do not mean 'on drugs', but rather in a tall building.

Which is truly not the same thing at all.

Jim,

Might I suggest you read your own posts? Or does HRH feel that insults are for the morally superior only?

It would seem you can dish it out-- but can't take it.

As they say in your part of the world, "plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme."

Do you need me to explain that to you?

It is the sanity of American policy that is being questioned on this side of the atlantic.

Small consolation, I'm sure, but you should know that more Americans than ever in our history are questioning it as well.

I know that BCB. And it is one more reason to find anti-americanism fairly silly. And of course, before someone starts on it: we are all still deeply indebted to America's realignment of German interests in the 40's.

What is fascinating though is the use of rhetoric to try and close of American policy from any criticism from outside.

What I like to describe as the 'they all hate us anyway' attitude.

Bernard, thank you for your post.

I do agree with you somewhat. Most Europeans are not anti American, per se. My issue is with anti Americanism as a European 'moral impertive' as I refer to it- that somehow, European governments and media seem to use anti Americanism as a rallying call to assert the European identity. In other words, find a villain.

You raise a fair point about Americans whining re not being liked-- fair enough. Personally, like you, I don't care.

As for not policing the world, well, that's not realistic. We are criticized when we intervene and called isolationist when we don't. Scroll up and read the post from an Iraqi blogger. It can be read on post #43. He says it better than I ever could.

As for destabilizing the world for oil, well, destabilizing the US serves European and Asians just as well.

Realpolitik lives!

Boomcrash, you raise a good point.

The upcoming elections will be the final arbiter.

Though, in fairness, Kerry won't be all that different than Bush-- certainly as it relates to foreign policy.

Bernard-- are you saying the (mis)use of rhetoric is unknown in Europe and Canada?

Seems to me, we're only now responding!

Let us set the rest of the world straight once and for all. There is no European identity. We share little more than our continent and our money. Certainly Europe doesn't share an identity. If we need a villain We could easily find some nice Italian or German to hate. Some governments didn't want the war in Iraq. Their reasons will have to be their own, but it wans't to serve the European identity. If anything Europe is split in two at the moment. The coalition of the willing and the gathering of evildoers, I guess.

Realpolitik lives, but consequences can hardly ever be correctly predicted.

And no, the misuse of rhetoric is not unknown in Europe (again, I don't know Canada, but mayhaps they don't really rhetorize as much there. My image of the pure north I guess). But empty rhetoric pisses me off on both sides of the pacific.

People are stupid enough without having my intelligence insulted by politicians.

Not surprisingly, Justene has deleted the core of an excellent explanation [edited]

As for the policing thing. Maybe. But the plan was an important part of my argument. And for god's sake, don't torture the people you 'freed'. It's hell on your PR-job.

"People are stupid enough without having my intelligence insulted by politicians."

I absolutely laughed out loud! In so few words, you said much!

I do agree with you, certainly that in the past, there was no one 'EuroVoice'. There has never been, nor will ever be, much love lost between the French and the Germans, for example.

As a matter of fact, I do recall something a Polish told me in Krakow (I spent some time there). He said, "The Germans don't need bullets any more. Now, they use Deutschmarks."

I also do now believe that the EU is indeed searching for one, out of necessity.

Bernard, the 'ask the people you freed' line is disengenous, at best.

The legacy of European Colonialism has proved to be a far greater problem and and has had far more consequence than anything America, as a nation, has ever done.

Unfounded accusations violate the comment policy. Figure out how to express your opinion without making such accusations.

BoomCrash, you said, "We've got to accept the consequences for the choices we make. If we shrug our shoulders and say 'it's a free market' to them, we're going to have to accept the anti-Americanism it will bring."

Yup, you're right-- but be that as it may, ultimately, people do make choices and have to live with consequences.

How do we limit choice? Who sets the limits? That would be a an even bigger boondoggle, I think.

Searching for an identity. We're in for a wild ride if the EU is going to do it. We will have to define our identity by committee without having any of the members veto any word in it.

Coming to you in the fall of the 2135: my European identity.

I should sleep though. Good night.

Justene, to what unfounded accusations are you referring?

'The legacy of European Colonialism has proved to be a far greater problem and and has had far more consequence than anything America, as a nation, has ever done.'

Yeah, but we passed the tradition on, s it seems.

When it comes to disengenousness, ask the same people. All things are relative.

Bernard, you just said a mouthful!

I don't know how they'll do it, but if the everchanging EU Constitution is a indicator, well, batten down the hatches!

Sleep well.

Bernard, you're right on the money.

"Yeah, but we passed the tradition on, s it seems."

GOAAAAAAAAAAAL!!

Do you need me to explain that to you?

Yes, please explain how being a isolationist, abusive jerk who solely relies on stereotypes and apparently plagiarized anecdotes (yes, I did read that article in Arts and Letters Daily, too) to prop up a chauvinistic, jingoistic, backwards-looking world-view makes anybody else outside your club make us like you, well, gas on.

All I can expect is your taste in music is probably outright coprophagic.

Plagarized? Really? Do tell. I wrote that piece a while back.

Regardless, you still have not addressed the issues at hand- not surprisingly.

Calling me an isolationist is hardly substantive. Perhaps you can try again.

As for props, I do wish Canadians would take a more original approach. As I said, book banning, church intimidation...hmmm..where have I heard that before...? Especially the part about a mesmerized population, spouting the sillines.

Perhaps that Iraq blogger can enlighten you. See his words in post#43.

In any case, I do have some sad news for you, from the music world. Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious are passe. They have become irrelevant. Know what I mean? Sure you do.

My condolences.

Since I haven't banned any books, or booked any banns in a church, and haven't been hypmotized in recent memory, and am just one man in a free nation, among many, I really don't understand what you are talking about.

You really seem to be taste deprived.

And since you seem to know what article in Arts and Letters Daily I referred to, the plagarism seems even stronger.

I once had dinner with this guy who made up everything he typed on the internet. His favourite was posting as teenage girl truckers.

How interesting. How long have you been associating with guys "posting as teenage girl truckers"? Speaks volumes as to your tastes and predilictions.

You are indeed an versatile fellow.

That you have not yet had your banns published is no surprise. Yes, they are published, not booked. Check it out.

Now, had you actually read my pervious post (and understood it), I was asking you to please forward the link. If you indeed did misunderstand, my apologies.

My referance to banned books and church intimidation was a referance to Canada. You know, banning Salman Rushdie, threatning theologians with hate crimes and the like. I find interesting that Canadians seem most comfortable piously criticing American policies, while there is obviously much to clean up at home. I mean, if that passes for freedom in Canada, then you are somewhat at a loss in credibility when you criticize US policies.

When you're accused of plagiarism, you're supposed to say "What article in Arts and Letters Daily" as if people can't look it up for themselves, but given that the stakes are so small and petty, it's not worth bother. But, the dancing around just makes you look more like a cheap polemicist.

I don't represent my country, I just live here, and whatever shite you want to sling, throw it at the people who are outraging your apparently puritan values. I really don't give a fuck about bible-bangers, and I have a whole bunch of Salman Rushdie books over that shelf, and I think most people in the States are good people who have allowed their country to be highjacked by a bunch of neo-fascist yahoos.

Back it up.

Show me the money. If I plagarised, call me on it.

I'm glad you concede you don't represent Canada. I'm sure most Canadians would agree.

Like yourself, I don't refer to Canadians as a monolithic group. Like yourself, I see the Canada (as reflected by the elected government) as having gone from a once a once great moral voice and nation to to a lot less than that.

My responses were directed to you and you alone. That you chose to use ad hominums is a shame. I suspect we could have had an interesting discussion.

"So, a hint, if you want to make a launch, start with critiquing and reviewing books, music and video and them move on to the bullshit circus."

Jim, are you making official BC policy here?

And if you don't like the Etc. column, why do you comment there so damn much?

"Not surprisingly, Justene has deleted the core of an excellent explanation [edited]"

LOL!

You just can't control that "black rage" can you, MD? ;)

"All I can expect is your taste in music is probably outright coprophagic."

You think he eats his own shit while listening to the radio?

Isn't "scat" mostly popular in Germany? South Park suggests so...

Quietly talking amongst yourselves is a strange and rare concept for you people isn't it.

Bernard, I just want to thank you for Comment #53; it is very instructive, informative, and lucid.

Hearing from an intelligent, articulate European cuts right to the heart of what this essay was meant to address -- and B's comments bear repeating:

BERNARD: "...I do wish Americans would stop whining about the world not liking them because they are so good and so free and so strong. ...if you want to be free from criticism, don't police the world and stay home. Wear jeans, drink budweiser and do what America does best. Enjoy yourselves. Destabilise the world further than it already was, without a plan how to make it a better place (and by better I do not mean a more steady oil reserve) and then expect the world to be somewhat pissed sometimes."

I'm in agreement with the sentiments about US military presence elsewhere.

It is high time our troops and lack of plans ceased to be such a nuisance to the rest of the planet. Let's bring them all back. It's time to stop defending Germany. They can do it all by themselves. That goes for everyone else, too.

The Founding Fathers warned against foreign entanglements and military adventurism, and they were absolutely correct.

So, let's see some real isolationism as we retreat militarily towards merely protecting our actual borders. The US budget will be all the better for it, and the world will smile on our newfound respect for our neighbors.

This was all so ad hominem, starting with the original post, that I wasn't goint to join in but something in Comment 17 piqued my interest:

"As for myths about genocide and slavery?"

JC: "Plagiarism" is a strong accusation, particularly on a site like this.

Personally, I'd like to see proof or a retraction.

Hal, to be fair, AH was responding to a sentence by MacDiva:

DIVA: "...we are spoon fed the childrens' myth about a country founded on genocide and slavery being ideal."

Granted, it's a badly written and a tad convoluted -- what with "ideal" being in the [sort of] wrong spot to modify "country", but you get the idea...

AH responded with: "As for myths about genocide and slavery, how does Canada's past treatment of its minorities (aboriginal) make Canadians superior?"

Observer's Note for those too tired to read the entire "War & Peace" of this entry: I visited AH's web site, and he seems to have a "thing" for Canada. He apparently holds Canada up as an example of all that's wrong with a socialistic, liberal society. Which I find kinda strange, since the only time Canada shows up on the USA's Narcissistic Radar is when we need to blame someone for a blackout --- or opportunistic politicos mention Grandma's trip north to get cheap prescription dope.

I dunno, maybe as a child, he was frightened by a Mountie or somethin'? Or singled out at a Don Rickles performance and called a "hockey puck" in public?

Carry on, tho.

BTW Hal, if you're just skimming, Bernard The European's comments are pretty cool.

Check 'em out.

Actually Shark, I'm surprised at you.

My few refersnces to Canada were about Canada's heathcare system-- a failing example, as noted by more than one Canadian and a referance to current Canadian laws as they relate to certain freedoms, once cherished by Canadians.

I can undertand your wishing to 'educate' people about what I have written by sugesting they not visit my site- the truth it seems, disturbs you greatly.

Which is underastandable, of course.

Shark, like MacDiva, I am guilty of a poorly written entry, re' myths' of a country. My response was meant top meant to mean that it is not only the US that has a history of mistreatment of aboriginals.

Hal, I too am waiting for JC to back up the charge of plagarism.

We'll see. But even he doesn't (he can't), I'll consider a 'heat of the moment' overstep.

Shark, your remarks re Bernards post are well taken.

Please see post #59, as I responded to his critique.

Mike Kole, I'd be more than a bit inclined to agree with you, if it were possible.

The US cannot disengage. One way or another, via foreign aid of all sorts and so on, we will remain engaged.

We have our own interests to maintain and for the most part, have done so in a none military way.

If we intervene, we are meddlers and if we don't we are isolationists.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What I said in the abruptly chopped off comment above is that there is no ideological test for being an American and that there should not be. Anyone who finds that fact and opinion offensive is saying more about herself than she is about the rather innocuous remark.

I've decided that it is best to let this entry stand for itself. Any intelligent person reading it (without an admitted family history of psychosis and far Right toes that are easily stepped on) will realize it is an exercise in myth making and McCarthy era thinking.

Jim is right about the at least semi-plagiarism of the entry. I recognized the conceit of a conversation with Europeans about an ideal, upstanding American (who is presented as representative, but is not) right off the bat. There have been Right Wing variations on Alexis de Tocqueville on the Net for a long time. However, the entry is partly the author's own misconceptions and myth making as well, so I decided to focus on that. Someone dismissing centuries of genocide and slavery as 'somebody got beat up' is of more interest to me than refusing to attribute. Also, it is so typical for people at this site to fail to credit sources that I rarely focus on it anymore.

For the "plagiarism", I just made that shit up.

Yep, a total fiction. Just like the original post. Could I note that AH made no effort whatsoever to try and prove what he ginned up to support his hot-flash opinion had any basis in fact in this, or other worlds.

So, if you are going to post fiction, could you at least make an effort, however so feeble, to make it entertaining?

If I want to hear about Bullshit, I just go to Penn & Teller.

I've said it before, you are here to entertain me, if you do a piss-poor job of it, I'm going to call you out on being a bad balloon-twisting clown.

I see. So you admit to a penchant for making things up.

That explains a lot.

In any case, inasmuch as you were the one to take me to task, it would be incumbent on you to 'back it up', that with which you disagree. Obviously, you can't and result to ever more boring ad hominums.

Allow me a suggestion that might save you some money. Rather than spend a few dollars on Penn and Teller to entertain yourself with BS, just look in the mirror. They could learn a thing or two from you.

As for being entertained, I'd like to reciprocate and thank you. You too, provide me and few friends some great entertainment, though admittedly, you've proven your repetoire isn't very deep.

By the way, you do know it's PUBLISH the banns, right?

I'm sorry you only have a few friends.

I get from you the rigor of Young Soviet Youth. What are you going to do when your empire collapses?

I think you're just pining for a hug from John Ashcroft, and a softy whispered lyric. With some music from Eugene Chadbourne.

I tried to do this indirectly and unobtrusively but that didn't work so:

It's 'ad hominem' not 'ad hominum'.

(Ditto for 'picque' and 'pique' if that ever comes up again.)


As for you, JC, I used to find you entertaining at times but you've just admitted that what you say can't be trusted. That's too bad because credibility isn't all the easy to find on the Net. Adios.

Hal, I stand corrected-- thank you.

The 'picque' was a typo, I think. Mea Culpa!

Jim-

Inasmuch as you're the 'lefty' (or don't you know the difference between the 'left' and 'right'?) here, I'd like to remind you of the ignomious end of the 'lefty' causes: Communism, the Sandanistas, and libertation movements of all stripes, etc., ad nauseum. Of course, feel free to extol the merits of Castro and North Korea wearing your Che Gueverra T shirt-- while you still can.

Seems not much of the 'lefty' causes end up anywhere other than the 'dustbin of history'. They and their supporters (yes, that double entendre was meant for you) have been deemed irrelevant or worse.

Yup, you can sure pick em.

Since you're in a good mood this evening, try "ignominious" and "ad nauseam" :-)

LOL

That I DO know-- I can and will point to my numerous typos!

The post from you I'd really like to see is the 'instant easy typing tutor'!

Only 6.5 finger speed....

BEWARE!

The pedants are afoot! ;)

RJ, aren't you the guy who nit-picked a number of my typos on more than one occasion?

In this instance, I wasn't trying to pick on typos but on what could have been spelling mistakes.

Rather than jumping in with childish "Nyah, nyah, you made a mistake," however, I first tried a subtle notification by using the correct spellings ('ad hominem' and 'pique') to start my comment.

The idea was that the author would notice and make corrections with no embarrassment to anyone. That didn't work and the author posted 'ad hominums' so I corrected it more plainly, because once is a typo but more than that could be a mistake, and it would be a good deed to correct that.

Typos aren't serious, but continued spelling errors are. They really detract from the credibility of the author, and AH looked pretty credible to me (even if I disagree with his post) so I wanted to eliminate the couple I saw without turning it into a big deal since that has nothing to do with the thread.

So much for being Mr. Nice Guy :-)

Hal, you're right!

I don't mind being taken to task for my missteps and mispellings.

Actually, I was unaware I could go back and correct my mistakes. In any case, thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

"there is no ideological test for being an American and that there should not be."

There should also not be an ideological test for "minorities" then, right?

Of course not-- an American is an American, regardless of race, color or creed.