> Lawrence DeBivort wrote: > > Chris, I can only wonder -- Have you EVER visited the USA? > > No, but I trust official statistics, reports etc. more than I trust the > Hollywood image. Sorry, the actual influences that Americanization has > on Europe are bad enough that I'm not keen on visiting the "real thing". > (And no Arthur, I don't confuse progress with Americanization.)
Your previous ill-informed comments on the federal spending caps suggest that you do NOT read "official statistics, reports, etc." and instead rely on secondary and tertiary materials that make up for their ignorance with sensationalism. I wish that you DID consult primary sources before forming views that support your -- yes -- schedenfreude. > > There is a mistake that many foreigners make when they look at > the US: they > > fail to realize that many Americans engage is scathing criticism of the > > country, while acknowledging its strengths and accomplishments only in > > passing. > > If so many Americans are so critical, then why do they have such a system? The American 'system' is actually a complex of systems. I will not explain this here, but suggest that if you want to know more, you read such books as Karen Armstrong's THE SEARCH FOR GOD, David Halberstam's THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, and EMPIRE EXPRESS. Of course, there are many more outstanding studies and I would be happy to recommend them to you if you were to be interested -- and I am sure other list members will be happy to be as helpful. > > I will pass on correcting the factual mistakes you make in your posting > > I look forward to reading the corrections if there are any. I expended significant time to explain the federal spending cap to you without feeling that you really wanted to understand, and so feel that I've done my duty when it comes to providing you with correcting information. But if you want a hint: you can start with your statement that 'the Supreme Court appointing the US President.' > > But your joy in the misery of others (schadenfreude), does not > > speak well for you. > > This is an unfair allegation. My motivation is to inform others that > there are other ways, that they are viable and better for the majority, > and if they follow the example then they could perhaps make their > country a better place. If I would feel Schadenfreude, I would just > keep the alternative for myself, silently watching with glee how Keith > misinforms the audience. Your protect rings hollow: you routinely criticize without understanding, and reject information that counters your point of view. Nor do you present 'other ways'. Nor would you advance ad hominum arguments, as you just did. Keith and I agree on some things, and disagree on others; but always I get the sense that he is searching for understanding, and to share this understanding and the ideas and knowledge of others. That you characterize him as 'misinforming' people simply confirms my view of the reality of your motive and contribution on this list. We are tackling enormously difficult issues here. It would be wonderful if you abandoned the need to belittle others in favor of joining with us in seeking understanding and answers to these issues. > > All societies, even your beloved Switzerland, have many problems > > Currently the largest problems of Switzerland are due to Americanization. Do not assume that there aren't people on this list who know better, Chris. > > Will you ever be able to cast an equally critical and useful > > eye on the country and culture that you are from? > > As long as too many Swiss are too critical of Switzerland and > too uncritical of America(nization), my priority is on being > critical of the latter. Thank you for this admission. You will not be surprised if I invoke it later, should you and I continue with this discussion about your posture and contribution to this list. > > Or is it important to you for your own sense of well-being to > maintain this > > obsessive litany of criticism of others > > Perhaps America would be criticized less if it could get rid of its > obsession of forcing its own system (and the resulting problems) upon > everyone else (with rather egoistic motives). I am sure it would be. And there are many people who are working to make it so. Lawry
