wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Protest Marches Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Protest Marches" Watch "Protest Marches" New topic
Author

Protest Marches

HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
"Chanting is morally ugly. It means to shout down and shut out. It is the expression of made-up minds, a form of bullying, however much those doing it are expressing their frustration at having themselves been bullied.
And it is a species of mass indoctrination. This and only this is the truth. Blair is a liar, full stop. try marching in the opposite direction declaring, ' No,he isn't!' and see how open to persuasion they'd be. In a march there are no individuals.
Whatever they declare and no matter how sincerely they declare it, marches exist to crush individual opinion. In this way they are no less despotic than the most despotic of regimes."
Howard Jacobson in The Independent
I remember seeing some individualism, in fact one individual, at Tianneman Square. The little guy who stopped the tanks. I suspect, it did help that the world press were present at the time.
regards
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
They'll all get bored soon and go home
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Chanting is a morally neutral behavior. How it is applied and to what intention is what gives people a reason to label it.
I think what the opiner has is mind is really closer to bleating. It became especially popular to report protesters' statements as chanting in the 60's, because clearly there was some occult influence to all that speaking out.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
The turnout for the London protests wasn't quite up to expectation. Pity.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Actually I think it was in the end, Jason. The first night of Bush's visit they had low turnout but London Police estimated 100,000 protestors on day 2.
Bit of a damp firecracker though. Nothing important happened. Except for the Rugby World Cup which England won on Saturday.
THAT got a real rise, even in my hometown in Outer London....


SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Actually I think it was in the end, Jason. The first night of Bush's visit they had low turnout but London Police estimated 100,000 protestors on day 2.

Actually, London police estimated 30,000. Scotland Yard's estimate was at 70,000. Naturally the protest organizers inflated their figures, claiming around 200,000. There are tons of articles you could find with these number on Google News, but here's a favorite of mine.
Stop The War estimated some 200,000 people took part in anti-American demonstrations, many of them middle class. Official sources � those without a partisan axe to grind � tell a different story. Scotland Yard estimated 70,000 people. However, London�s Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at only 30,000, nearly none of whom were middle class. In other words, not only did Stop the War overestimate its crowd by between 130,000 and 170,000 people, but the middle classes occupied themselves as they usually do, by going to work. Thus, the protests were pulled off by the usual suspects: leftist malcontents, Islamists, a few college students up for a laugh, full-time protesters and unemployed losers, the typical flotsam and jetsam that finds itself with spare time and a grudge to bear during the day in the middle of the work week. They were joined by truant schoolchildren, whose teachers looked the other way, and a few retirees -- at least, STW claims there were retirees present.

For those who whined about the extra security, it seems that it was proven to be warranted. In hindsight it is clear that officials had indications that there would likely be terrorist acts committed against British interests, although obviously they didn't know exactly where it would happen. Unfortunately, they were correct.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
I've read one criticism that Blair offered so much to Bush with nothing to show for it in return. I cannot recall that Blair asked for anything in return, other than maybe that Bush would continue to support the peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans (which Bush seems to be doing).
I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
London police intially estimated 30,000 then after media reports they changed the figure to 100,000, the real figure was considered to be higher. It was the largest week day protest ever in Britain. Believe me Bush really is hated in England.
Tony
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.

Who on earth thought the British Handgun ban was a bad thing ? Hand guns are made for one thing , killing people. Or am I reading your post incorrectly?
BTW Tony Martin shot someone in the back, how is a death sentance fair for theft.
If you would like to see a fair potrayal of gun crime in England watch a film called 'Shooters' all the actors are 'local Buissnesmen' from Toxteth, Liverpool. The glamour of guns will soon be lost.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 223
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I've read one criticism that Blair offered so much to Bush with nothing to show for it in return. I cannot recall that Blair asked for anything in return, other than maybe that Bush would continue to support the peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans (which Bush seems to be doing).
I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.

Are you serious that there was growing hostility in the US because of a totally internal British Government policy? I know we're meant to have a special relationship but that seems to be taking it a bit too far...
Angela Poynton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 02, 2000
Posts: 3143
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I've read one criticism that Blair offered so much to Bush with nothing to show for it in return. I cannot recall that Blair asked for anything in return, other than maybe that Bush would continue to support the peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans (which Bush seems to be doing).
I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.

I'm stunned by this.
How on earth were these two pieces of news reported over there? I'm expecting, poor old Tony Martin was portrayed as a kind of rancher out there "protecting his farm" - he wasn't! He commited a pre-meditated act of murder!
Oh and I'm guessing the NRA had a lot to say about our handgun ban! Personally, I love America, I love Americans but their obsession with guns terrifies me, and if a poor relationship with the US is the price we would have to pay to have no guns in thie country then I'd vote for it any day!


Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Believe me Bush really is hated in England.
Tony

That's a bit strongly worded.
I agree wth everything else you and subsequent posters said, though.

regards
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Originally posted by Angela Poynton:

Oh and I'm guessing the NRA had a lot to say about our handgun ban! Personally, I love America, I love Americans but their obsession with guns terrifies me, and if a poor relationship with the US is the price we would have to pay to have no guns in thie country then I'd vote for it any day!

The handgun ban was brought about, IIRC, because of the Dunblane massacre. My gut feeling is that the ban was a good thing, it might not be the full solution, but it was a step to preventing something like Dunblane from happening again.


Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Tony Collins:

Who on earth thought the British Handgun ban was a bad thing ? Hand guns are made for one thing , killing people. Or am I reading your post incorrectly?
BTW Tony Martin shot someone in the back, how is a death sentance fair for theft.

But it's not a sentence of death. It is self-defense.
Way back in the Dark Ages society decided that the rule of law would serve better than vendetta, Danegeld, and direct punishment of the offendor by the relatives of the victim.
This social contract depends upon the officers of the crown to effectively protect the property of the citizenry and the officers of the law to administer stern and effective punishment upon the criminals. I've read reports that Tony Martin suffered 20 or 30 robberies without a single arrest and a single day in jail being served. I have personally observed that crime is rarely caught and even more rarely punished in this country.
If there is a social contract in the UK I'd say the police and law officers are in breach of contract......
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Believe me Bush really is hated in England.

Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.

The Brits hate pensioners more. It's all relative to how the state manages it's pockets. Well, the Irish love their young and treat their old with respect so we can exclude them on this one.
regards
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

The Brits hate pensioners more. It's all relative to how the state manages it's pockets. Well, the Irish love their young and treat their old with respect so we can exclude them on this one.

The first point was made by Cherie Blair's father Tony Booth who was on last weeks anti-war protest march. Booth is moving to Ireland and the Blairs are
encouraging his move as he has been quite an embarassment with his staunch anti-monarchy views and a stauch opponent of the Norman conquest who, he says, destroyed the noble anglo-Saxon way of life in this country.
Never caught on to the Coke culture then, Tony Booth. The young are exhibiting this disenchantment too. But they are looking forward to a guava and ginseng culture.
I was driving down a street that used to be almost exclusively East Indian
but now has Albanians and Kossovons literally written all over it.
Crime has also risen in the area. Our unarmed police continue to tread the beat.

regards
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Tony Collins: "Who on earth thought the British Handgun ban was a bad thing?"
At least half of all Americans, though I think their anger was misplaced. There is no right to own sporting goods; the outrage occured long ago when the government declared that self-defense was not a legitimate use of them.

Tony: "Hand guns are made for one thing, killing people."
Your point being? There's nothing wrong with killing people under the proper circumstances -- otherwise your Royal bodyguards wouldn't be allowed firearms.
(My wife's uncle carried I think a Glock 19 as a personal bodyguard to Princess Margaret. He was annoyed at having to surrender his personal handgun collection, but he's still trained and armed to kill people, if necessary, to protect the royal family. They don't _need_ bodyguards -- they could peacefully eliminate most threats to their lives simply by abdicating and giving away their fortunes, but why should they have to do that? Likewise, why should a commoner have to submit to a burglar or armed robber in lieu of self-defense?)

Angela Poynton: "Tony Martin was portrayed as a kind of rancher out there `protecting his farm' - he wasn't! He commited a pre-meditated act of murder!"
Are you saying that Tony Martin actually _arranged_ to be burglarized, just so he could have the opportunity to shoot people?
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Frank, I suspect that after being burgled for the umpteenth time with no support or protection from the police and judicial system Tony Martin decided to use a gun to defend himself. That is premeditation in a legal sense. Moreover, Martin did kill a fleeing criminal with an illegal firearm.
Martin was and is a 'nutter'. The British are notorious for treating nutters extremely poorly.
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Posts: 435
I think this thread exibits the cultural difference between England and America. To me self defense is defense of ones self not the property that one owns. We do not define ourselfs purely by what we own.
In the city I live in gun crime has exploded (along with cocaine use) the British fight in the pub is now a shooting. The sharp end of gun crime is in the lower working classes not on rich farms.
Tony
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Students go on protest marches about university fees that add to their debt burden.
About 1000 UK students have taken the bankruptcy route to get clear of debts.
Never mind that bankrupts may find it difficult to get credit.
One student was �38,000 in debt.
regards
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Well that, and perhaps the British belief in the police's ability to be in all places at all times and prevent all crimes and protect all people.
Oh wait, they don't even believe that.
So how is it better when law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns?
I know this adage has been tossed around like rice at a wedding, but "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
In the city I live in gun crime has exploded (along with cocaine use) the British fight in the pub is now a shooting.
So I guess the gun ban has been a huge success.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
I think this thread exibits the cultural difference between England and America. To me self defense is defense of ones self not the property that one owns. We do not define ourselfs purely by what we own.

Ah, us materialist Yanks! Deplorable.....
How do you square that view with the vast gulf between citizens of the US and Canada with citizens of other rich countries in charitable giving? In a recent year (as I recall) citizens of the US gave $200 billion. The equivalent for the UK was (I believe) about $4 billion.....
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
In the city I live in gun crime has exploded (along with cocaine use) the British fight in the pub is now a shooting. The sharp end of gun crime is in the lower working classes not on rich farms.

Ever had a look at Martin's 'rich' farm, Tony? He named it 'Bleak House' and he wasn't kidding! Martin's quality of life was no better than on the worst of council estates. One difference though, he owned his land.
Two differences, perhaps. A British jury would probably not have handed out a 4 year jail sentence with no parole to the resident of a council flat so invaded....
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Students go on protest marches about university fees that add to their debt burden.
About 1000 UK students have taken the bankruptcy route to get clear of debts.
Never mind that bankrupts may find it difficult to get credit.
One student was �38,000 in debt.

Shocking isn't it? Particularly given that at current tuition rates of 1100 quid a year that student would need 33 years to run up a debt of that size! Is the interest rate 20% or something?
I suspect that most of that debt was living costs in London, spending on credit cards, or both. Tuition may have raised the debt from �34,000 to �38,000, but could not have been the major factor.
In the US freshly graduated doctors often end up with debts of $150,000 to $200,000. Shocking except when one considers that they start on $100,000 and go up to 150 or 200K within a few years.
The NHS is different of course, but might the government implement a scheme which would forgive a percentage of the debt for each year spent in the NHS rather than private practice? The US used to have a scheme like that for schoolteachers. After 10 years you were clear of debt as I recall.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

Shocking isn't it? Particularly given that at current tuition rates of 1100 quid a year that student would need 33 years to run up a debt of that size! Is the interest rate 20% or something?

This particular student studied an undergraduate course in physiology and pharmacy followed by a masters degree.That's about 5-6 years IMHO.
For these type of subjects an undergraduate course alone ain't enough. I find that quite credible that debts of this size are run up.I agree that it also suggests the inclusion of living expenses and tution fees not to mention books .
regards
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So I guess the gun ban has been a huge success.



The crime rate in London is getting quite disproportionately high.Kensington and Chelsea ,alone, had about a 30% increase this last year. I haven't heard of any shootings in London. Stabbings, yes.
Tony might be refering to Manchester or nka "Gunchester".
regards
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Alfred Neumann: "(Tony) Martin was and is a 'nutter'. The British are notorious for treating nutters extremely poorly"
Even nutters have a right not to be burgled.

Alfred Neumann: "Martin did kill a fleeing criminal with an illegal firearm."
Well, it's not as though he had any _legal_ firearms to choose from. Are there _any_ deadly weapons that are legal to possess with intention for use in self-defense in England?
And, yes, Martin should have fired sooner, before the perps turned and ran. Nevertheless, it says in the Bible that when a man breaks into an occupied dwelling at night and is killed by the residents, there is no blood guilt for him. Of course, British law nonetheless _says_ it is murder. That's like the old joke: "If a farmer has two chickens and three ducks, and we agree to refer to ducks as chickens, then how many chickens does he have? The answer: Two! Callin' ducks `chickens' don't make 'em chickens!" And calling what Martin did "murder" doesn't make it so. (For all he knew, they might have been merely running for cover, to continue the fight from there.)
The British newspapers never go beyond slogans when discussing the gun issue. They say that preparing for self-defense shows a lack of faith in government, whose job it is to protect the people. Then they treat the man whose gun is stolen as a criminal for not having secured it better. ("What? I don't need to keep my gun loaded, because I'm supposed to trust the government to protect me from burglars, but then I'm supposed to keep it locked away safely because I _don't_ trust the government to keep burglars out of my house??? Which is it?") And if gun owners are responsible to secure their weapons safely, then why not reduce the temptation to burglary in general by requiring people to safely secure _all_ their property? Make it a crime to leave _any_ property where a burglar can find it -- I guarantee that you'll vastly reduce the number of reported burglaries overnight!
Foreign newspapers oppose self-defense weapons lest it create an "arms race" between criminals and their intended victims. Reporting on storekeepers who overpowered club-armed robbers with their bare hands, one Canadian newspaper expressed disapproval -- saying that such behavior might motivate robbers to start carrying guns, thus increasing the danger. If that's the right attitude, then why not go all the way with it? Mandate jailtime for disobedience to criminals, and offer amnesty to robbers who provide evidence that can be used to convict uncooperative victims. Then a robber won't need _any_ weapon -- all he'll need is a video camera to film his victim as he makes his demands. The victim will _have_ to submit despite the camera's harmlessness, thus making robbery ever so much safer for us all!
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
I believe you can find that last post in the dictionary as an example under the phrase "slippery slope"
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
HS Thomas: "Students go on protest marches about university fees that add to their debt burden."
Maybe students should also protest that the government refuses to supply them with ice-cream. And the ugly and shy students should march demanding that the government provide them with their fair share of sex. The free market in love distributes its goods so unevenly, you know.
Radicals can even organize gang rapes to redistribute the sexual wealth. After all, gang rape is nothing if not _democratic_! ("I don't care if you're not in the mood, lady. We out-vote you, thirty to one. And I see that you have dangerously long fingernails. Just to ensure that you don't use them as an offensive weapon, Officer Bob here is going to hold your arms down 'till we're done.")
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Tony Collins: "I think this thread exibits the cultural difference between England and America. To me self defense is defense of ones self not the property that one owns."
That's the view on both sides of the Atlantic.
The difference is that we recognize no obligation to surrender property to criminals, so deadly force is allowed when one reasonably believes that the criminal will use deadly force (meaning violence that has the potential to kill or do grave bodily harm) in response to one's resistance.
Many (not all) states add the proviso that a person who breaks into an occupied dwelling may be presumed to pose a deadly threat. (Better safe than sorry.)
The only way to truly understand the American point of view is to read this essay: A Nation of Cowards (Maybe it should be a new thread.)
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
And the ugly and shy students should march demanding that the government provide them with their fair share of sex. The free market in love distributes its goods so unevenly, you know.
Radicals can even organize gang rapes to redistribute the sexual wealth. After all, gang rape is nothing if not _democratic_! ("I don't care if you're not in the mood, lady. We out-vote you, thirty to one. And I see that you have dangerously long fingernails. Just to ensure that you don't use them as an offensive weapon, Officer Bob here is going to hold your arms down 'till we're done.")
You have just become my favourite voice of right-wing reasoning at MD!
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 223
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

The Brits hate pensioners more. It's all relative to how the state manages it's pockets. Well, the Irish love their young and treat their old with respect so we can exclude them on this one.
regards

I hadn't noticed people here hating pensioners. Are you referring to the fact that the state pays a pittance in pension to those who don't have a private pension? Or do you have evidence of something more sinister?
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 223
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.

Theres a huge difference between no liking your president and being anti-American. Bush is not the sum total of the US is he?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Steve Wink:
Theres a huge difference between no liking your president and being anti-American.

Ok, let's go from here. For a non-US person (it is different, and yes a double standard, for US citizens), what is the huge difference between not liking Bush and being anti-American?
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Steve Wink: "Theres a huge difference between no liking your president and being anti-American. Bush is not the sum total of the US is he?"
The reason I connect hatred of Bush with anti-Americanism (even among Americans who hate Bush) is that Bush is the most truly American president that we've had since Ronald Reagan -- perhaps he is even more American than Reagan:
(1) He is sincerely religious -- going to church is not merely public relations for the benefit of stupid voters, nor does he see religion merely as a tool to paper a moral veneer over policies actually motivated by Marxist thinking.
(2) He admits and supports the right to keep and bear arms for use in individual self-defense. He has no moral qualms about killing murderers and people who threaten murder.
(3) He is proud, not ashamed, to be an American. For example, he doesn't crawl and beg the forgiveness of African tyrants for the fact that Americans 150 years ago bought some of their slaves. Nor is he apologetic for the fact that some Americans are poor. (It would be truly arrogant to assume that only other countries should have poor people.)
(4) He feels open disdain for both the old Left of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s -- properly equating them to the fascists and Nazi-sympathizers of those eras.
(5) Like a typical American, he naively assumes that foreigners love freedom, or would love freedom, as much as he does. (They don't.)
(6) Like an American, he is generous and expects a degree of chivalry from others. When he hears that militants have hijacked a cruise ship, taken one of the tourists -- an old man in a wheelchair, shot him, and thrown him overboard -- he feel righteous outrage. He doesn't try to justify the act in its political context, or rationalize it as a message of desperation from an oppressed people. He feels open contempt for those who could respond to such an act with shouts of joy.
Europeans much prefer Clinton, who I think was ashamed to be an American. I can just imagine him as a student at Oxford, admitting that Europe is ever so much more cultured, progressive, and intelligent than America; telling them "We're not _all_ cowboys trying to be John Wayne, and my ambition is to try to work through the system to make America more like Europe."
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 223
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Ok, let's go from here. For a non-US person (it is different, and yes a double standard, for US citizens), what is the huge difference between not liking Bush and being anti-American?

So, you're saying that a non American cannot dislike Bush without disliking the whole of the US? I can understand the double standard in that one can criticise your own but will gang up if an outsider dares to, I think thats human nature.
Theh difference is that Bush is just one person, albeit the most powerful person, whereas the US is hundreds of millions with different views/attitudes/personalities. If 100% of the electorate had voted for him, then I'd agree that he represents the entire US, but thats not the case. And no, this is not a reference to the controversy over the election, but even a president with 60% of the vote has 40% against him, which is healthy - only dictatorships seem to get 100% votes for their leaders... Now, if Bush or someone just like him got voted in by a large majority election after election then you could say that the president and the country are synonymous. BTW, this isn't a liberal/conservative thing - I thought his dad and Reagan were much better than him...
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Steve Wink:
So, you're saying that a non American cannot dislike Bush without disliking the whole of the US?

Then what do you dislike? I'm trying to point out the obvious, which is leaders in a democracy don't rule autocratically. "Hating" the leader of a democracy because of his policies doesn't make any sense, unless that hatred is also directed at his supporters. Attacking an individual who happens to be one of the most popular President's ever, whose policies while villified abroad are very popular at home, also doesn't say very much for how you (not you in particular, but in the general sense) feel towards the people of his country.
Theh difference is that Bush is just one person, albeit the most powerful person, whereas the US is hundreds of millions with different views/attitudes/personalities. If 100% of the electorate had voted for him, then I'd agree that he represents the entire US, but thats not the case.
So using that logic, you are saying that Anti-Bushism isn't Anti-Americanism because the Anti-Bush crows is only Anti-Americans-who-support-Bush? That would be the majority of the country, in which case the label can be simplified to anti-American.
Here are two definitions for anti-American, and both of them seem to hold:
1. Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.
2. Opposed to the Americans, their aims, or interests, or to the genius of American institutions.
The non-US crowd that refers to themselves mereley as anti-Bush most often shows themselves to be opposed/hostile the government and official policies, at the very least. The second definition would also apply, where this crowd shows themselves to be opposed to the Americans' aims and/or interests, at the very least.
So given the above your response, "because he's only one person", is not sufficient defense for the anti-Bush crowd to claim they are not anti-American. They don't hate the guy because of his personality, they hate him because of what he represents and the policies the US government enacts. And as that is the case, the anger directed at Bush is misplaced as it should be equally directed at all levels of the US government. And in a democracy, we are talking about people who we can assume represent the will of their electorate. You see where I'm going here?
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

This particular student studied an undergraduate course in physiology and pharmacy followed by a masters degree.That's about 5-6 years IMHO.
For these type of subjects an undergraduate course alone ain't enough. I find that quite credible that debts of this size are run up.I agree that it also suggests the inclusion of living expenses and tution fees not to mention books .


So if the student did a 6-year course the tuition fee might have been as much as �6600 out of �38000. It's still small-scale debt by US standards.
I spent 5 years at university, graduating in 1982 with $5500 in debt. It was that low only because I spent the last three years at a public university and worked a full-time job most of that time. I paid my tuition fees and living costs out of earnings during that time. Difficult but worthwhile.
No credit cards, no 'lifestyle' worth living. But a damn good education I think. When you earn every pence it can motivate one to make the most of it...
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 223
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Then what do you dislike? I'm trying to point out the obvious, which is leaders in a democracy don't rule autocratically. "Hating" the leader of a democracy because of his policies doesn't make any sense, unless that hatred is also directed at his supporters. Attacking an individual who happens to be one of the most popular President's ever, whose policies while villified abroad are very popular at home, also doesn't say very much for how you (not you in particular, but in the general sense) feel towards the people of his country.
Theh difference is that Bush is just one person, albeit the most powerful person, whereas the US is hundreds of millions with different views/attitudes/personalities. If 100% of the electorate had voted for him, then I'd agree that he represents the entire US, but thats not the case.
So using that logic, you are saying that Anti-Bushism isn't Anti-Americanism because the Anti-Bush crows is only Anti-Americans-who-support-Bush? That would be the majority of the country, in which case the label can be simplified to anti-American.
Here are two definitions for anti-American, and both of them seem to hold:
1. Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.
2. Opposed to the Americans, their aims, or interests, or to the genius of American institutions.
The non-US crowd that refers to themselves mereley as anti-Bush most often shows themselves to be opposed/hostile the government and official policies, at the very least. The second definition would also apply, where this crowd shows themselves to be opposed to the Americans' aims and/or interests, at the very least.
So given the above your response, "because he's only one person", is not sufficient defense for the anti-Bush crowd to claim they are not anti-American. They don't hate the guy because of his personality, they hate him because of what he represents and the policies the US government enacts. And as that is the case, the anger directed at Bush is misplaced as it should be equally directed at all levels of the US government. And in a democracy, we are talking about people who we can assume represent the will of their electorate. You see where I'm going here?

Ok, I'm following your logic. What about Americans who dislike Bush, because they dislike his policies. Aren't they opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States, and therefore anti-American?
 
GeeCON Prague 2014
 
subject: Protest Marches