Commissar

Democracy ensures that the people are governed no better than they deserve. I support a meritocracy. You can vote if you pass certain tests. You can run for office if you pass certain tests.

Heh. Anyway, welcome to hurricanes. This is what they do, especially to towns built below sea-level where it's impossible for water to drain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's true.

I never said American swagger started with the Bush administration. It certainly didn't. I heard people suggesting that we single-handedly won World War II with a little British help, long before Jesus told Bush to get sober enough to think about screwing us all over, believe me. I know plenty of decent, hard-working folks who couldn't find China or Germany or France on a map. You would not believe the number of people who don't know the difference between the White House and the Capitol building - high-ranking military officers included. We're losing academic ground every year, in every subject, to countries all over the world that half our populace couldn't locate. Is there anything you can do beyond being an ambassador at large and voting to improve education here? No, probably not. But there's nothing wrong with correcting your mistaken countrymen when they suggest that the Russians are still communist, either.

If you can't see how the general attitude towards a country can affect the reception of its foreign policy decisions, than I can't help you. I certainly think the general perception of Americans as arrogant and ignorant has had its effect on how things have gone in Iraq.

Why do I care? That's a damn good question, Eldar, and I'd have expected a guy as smart as you to be able to figure out the answer. Let's see; why would I care how the American attitude affects foreign disposition towards us? Why could I possibly care what people outside this country think of the average American? What reason would I have to worry about how my country and its foreign policy is perceived by the rest of the world? Nope, can't think of a single reason. I can vouch for the fact that everybody loves catching bullets in the sandbox.

Leaving aside the fact that everything between the coasts is indeed flyover country, I'm not entirely sure your point stands. I'm not saying people can't believe their country/region/whatever is the best; it's a natural thing to do. I wouldn't willingly live anywhere else. But that doesn't mean I have to make a point of shouting it from the rooftops every chance I get. I have little doubt the Dutch view Dutchland as the best place to call home, but you never hear Dutchy McDutcherson, Prime Minister of Dutchland, giving a speech 'bout how the rest of the world ought to follow Dutchland's example, while that really has been a constant theme from every administration I can remember. Why is it that we have to get everybody to agree with us? Why don't we let our deeds speak for themselves, rather than telling anyone who'll listen, and most that won't? You can't argue that's the nature of democracy, I don't think.

I think this ought to be renamed "The Middle School Fieldtrip Thread."

I don't think I have. How you guys got from me whining about American arrogance to a light-hearted discussion of democracy is beyond me, but if that's what you want, go for it. I'm certainly not going to stop you. I just got home and had to respond to some of the stuff from earlier on, back when I thought the original theme of the thread the response to, you know, what was quoted in the opening post. Edit: And looking back, that seems to have been your impression, too, at least during your first reply to the thread.

No, the original post was not about democracy, in point of fact. It was about rampant patriotism. There are plenty of democracies throughout the world that don't make me shake my head in disbelief. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the other democracies of the world don't have a counterpart for the redneck holding court in the back woods of Carolina, explaining why every other country on earth sucks in comparison to the US of A, despite the fact that he's never been further from home than Raleigh. We are an astonishingly stupid nation that nevertheless maintains that there never has been, isn't, and never will be any state in the world to equal us - in anything.

It doesn't matter if the insurgency is a failure in military terms, because that's not the fight it's trying to win. You pointed out exactly what its goals are; to cause American public support to drop to the point where everyone just gets sick of George's Middle Eastern Adventure and pulls up stakes. And, at the moment, it's working; approval ratings for the administration's handling of Iraq are at an all-time low, and recruitment numbers are...well, let's just say they're not going up. We have nowhere near our full force committed in Iraq, it's true, but as long as we're going to keep the current military configuration - the ability to fight two fronts at once - we're simply going to run out of people. And that's what's going to happen, because a people won't support a war without clearly defined and apparently obtainable goals - and a plan to accomplish those goals. Anyone who thinks we have that in place now is just dead wrong. It's also hard to drive wartime recruitment when the war itself isn't one of self-defense. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on perspective) people have gradually started to realize that Iraq is not and never was a war necessary for the protection of America. There are and always will be a few folks who want to go play in the sandbox, but by and large people are plenty content to chickenhawk it out.

The original post wasn't about democracy, but rather flag waving. Those in power who take pride in themselves are seen as arrogantly gloating, but those who are minorities or not on power can take pride in themselves. I think the double-standard is pretty stupid. I also think any generalization applied to 290 million people is stupid. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, you're wrong, but that's okay. I'd be just as ticked off about a small country with no claim to superiority running around telling the world it's the greatest thing since sliced cheese as I am about a big country with no claim to superiority doing so.

What about those of us who do know how good we have it? I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd venture to say I've spent more time abroad, and in more places, than anybody else on these boards, oftentimes obliged to pay for it all by my lonesome. I'm as big a fan of irony as anyone else, but it gets tiring to hear that I have no idea what I'm talking about, that I hate America and everyone in it, I'm one step away from a Palestinian suicide bomber, etc. etc. etc. I've played in the sandbox before, but I'm just not one of those guys who waves flags and declares American supremacy all the time. I remember my mother-in-law was visiting (she's Russian) and we were at a gas station, and there was some hillbilly truck with all the American flags and "Support Our Troops!" crap all over the back, and she was asking about it. She honestly didn't get it; her exact words were, "What, does he need a constant reminder of what country he's in?" Russians are intensely nationalistic, believe me, but they and a lot of other countries just don't get all the flag-waving that we do. They see it as arrogance, and I tend to agree. "My country is always right," and "My country, right or wrong," are just as foolish as, "America is always wrong." Take pride in your country, by all means, but do it quietly. I assume that most people who work in an office setting respect the guy who always gets his crap done and never makes a big deal about it; the guy who you never notice and yet always seems to be on top of his game. On the other hand, the office braggart who's always crowing about his accomplishments and never admitting his mistakes is going to be disliked no matter how effective he is - he's going to be disagreed with even if he happens to be right some of the time. Which one of those gentlemen most closely resembles the American image abroad, hmm?

They hate us for our freedom.

It wasn't a taboo at all. Ten bucks goes to whoever tells me when it became a taboo.

In other words:Don't tell your secret to a girl. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How did this thread turn into a geek round-table on women?

You guys are some sappy sumbitches, that's for sure.

Well, I'm pretty sure USC can make fun of UCLA. Come to think of it, there aren't that many football programs that USC can't make fun of, so I'd call it fair, and not necessarily unkind.

Let me put it this way; I probably wouldn't want to sleep with somebody who made hard and fast rules about not dating smokers in the first place, so I still maintain that it wouldn't affect my sex life.

I probably would. Non-smokers tend to be too damn whiny.

Maybe for some people.

That's a different issue altogether. I'm not going to debate the anti-tobacco lobbies blowing it out of proportion, as that is obvious. AFAIK, stress is much worse for your sex life than tobacco. Alcohol is known to be actually good for sex in small to moderate amounts, and devastating in large amounts (too much booze and you won't be able to, even if you want). But alcohol it isn't the target of a "holier-than-thou" social crusade, so that's beside the point. However, the original statement was "Smoking is bad for your sex life", which holds true. Nicotin is a vasoconstrictor, which if combined with other vasoconstrictors, stress or other unfavorable circumstances can result in erectile dysfunction. Granted, tobacco will hardly make you impotent by itself, but it's bad anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So why not make it, "Smoking, combined with some or all of numerous other factors, can be bad for your sex life,"? That seems more accurate to me than a blanket statement.

I lied. Numbers is apparently writing an essay on the subject.

Heh. Until it happens to you. I smoke when I

Do a Google search for "smoking and impotence" and watch the results. While I'm not a physician, I have a feeling that if it was "categorically untrue", it wouldn't be so widespread a notion. Yes, yes. I know that flat Earth was a widespread notion too, but the scientific method was applied for this one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seems to be about the same for 'alcohol' and 'stress,' too, and I don't think anybody'd argue that either of those cause widespread impotence. It's a niche thing, an occasional cause. Big deal. On the other hand, I can only speak from personal experience, and I'd say smoking has actually enhanced my sex life, just like it enhances good dinners or fine wines.