![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 33. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:30
In reply to Re: policy » AuntieMel, posted by Tamar on March 11, 2006, at 21:40:55
> I guess I wonder if it’s possible for someone outside the US to criticize US foreign policy without seeming to be anti-American.
yeah. i've been wondering that myself. and then reading that interview with nagel... for a time... he didn't think it was possible even for someone inside the US to criticize US foreign policy without seeming to be anti-American (after 9 11).
i see. i didn't know it was like that...
> I feel disturbed at the failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol (but then the same is true of Australia I believe...
yup. same is true of Australia... (though i think it is more important for US to sign because it makes more waste / pollution)
> So I wouldn’t consider myself anti-American, but I am very concerned about aspects of American culture and policy. And at the same time I’m concerned about aspects of the culture and policy of my own country.
yeah. though i think you will find that if you critique your countries policy... you won't get many responses. probably lucky to get one (clearskies has shown an interest in other countries policies though)... but that is all. thats why i keep talking about US foreign policy... because people will talk about that. they don't want to talk about NZ foreign policy... they don't want to talk about issues i have with the NZ govt. why don't i critique the NZ govt? because people don't respond to that. but they notice when i critique the US govt. sigh.
> I reckon you don’t have to look much farther than the civil rights movement to be able to claim that America has a long and proud history of radical thought.
hmm... hrm... i agree with your sentiment. there are a lot of terrific thinkers in the US... i have trouble with the notion that the amazing thinkers were civil rights activists etc though... for the reason that... there are other countries in which the indegenous population was never considered to be animals (and hence not persons) in the first place... but yeah, i think i get your sentiment...
>anti-American sentiment isn’t a criticism of all American people… I reckon it’s principally a critique of foreign policy combined with a fear of being culturally colonized…
yeah. and economically colonized...
(or 'colonised' ;-) )
> Is it possible to express those concerns here without being misinterpreted as anti-American?don't think so :-(
but then... the 'misinterpretation' seems to be considered legitimate rather than 'jumping to conclusions'... sigh... i don't understand the world sometimes...
Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy, posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 18:54:06
> they don't want to talk about NZ foreign policy... they don't want to talk about issues i have with the NZ govt. why don't i critique the NZ govt? because people don't respond to that. but they notice when i critique the US govt. sigh.
In my case it's because I know squat about NZ and many other foreign governments. But hmmm, I bet I could learn from reading your posts.
gg
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy » agent858, posted by gardenergirl on March 12, 2006, at 18:59:46
thats why i try and explain things... like a posted a couple things in the run up to the election... rainbow said hi but that was all... then teh election... clearskies had a bit of an interest and damos and stuff... but nobody was interested really. nobody gave a sh*t about the japanese whaling in the south pacific (nzers felt very passionate about that). nobody cared about nuclear waste coming through our nuclear free waters... nobody gives a sh*t.
US US US...
you don't really hear baout anything else - right?
don't even get me started on who owns the media...
i heard the other day that only 20% of US citizens have passports.
sigh.
i dunno. i give up.
Posted by Damos on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy, posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:28:36
Don't get me started on the whaling and the "me-too" itness of the current Australian government on so may things where they blindly follow the US. At least NZ thinks for itself.
And now because the US has decided that India are their best mates we'll probably sell them uranium. Because the US are pressuring us to.
As for whaling I think I'm with Sea Shepherd and not Greenpeace on this one. And in my personal opinion the Australian Govt has been (well I can't say it without being PBCd or blocked)on this issue. I dispair at times I do.
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy » agent858, posted by Damos on March 12, 2006, at 20:10:45
> And now because the US has decided that India are their best mates we'll probably sell them uranium. Because the US are pressuring us to.
Ah... Well thats probably not so good for us because we were persuing free trade with China (don't get me started on how I think that is a bad idea...)
> As for whaling I think I'm with Sea Shepherd and not Greenpeace on this one.
?
Sea Shepherd?All I know is that...
It is supposed to be a whale sanctury and japan has no territorial claim to the waters...
Comercial whaling is illegal...
They aer saying 'scientific research'
But there was a report and they do not need to kill the whales to find out what they need to know.
The fact is that they take small tissue samples for the scientific research and the rest finds its way to the commercial market.NZ wouldn't send a ship to try and stop them...
But greenpeace activists have been trying to hinder things (and gain some publicity for the cause) by getting out there with inflatable dinghies and trying to get between whales and harpoons...
They are asking Australia to not let the ships dock on Aus. land...
Not let the planes refuel on Aus. land...But I dunno.... Can't get my old news sources here :-(
Don't know what has been happening in my corner :-(> And in my personal opinion the Australian Govt has been (well I can't say it without being PBCd or blocked)on this issue. I dispair at times I do.
(((((Damos)))))
Wanna go protest outside govt house?????
Posted by James K on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy, posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 18:54:06
i have trouble with the notion that the amazing thinkers were civil rights activists etc though... for the reason that... there are other countries in which the indegenous population was never considered to be animals (and hence not persons) in the first place... but yeah, i think i get your sentiment...
>
----What other countries? where, when, The romans? the picts. The civil right movement was never about our indegenous population. It was about other conquerors selling their indegenous people to us. As far as I can tell, remember, we still haven't had a complete civil rights movent for our indegenous people. That's why the Delaware tribe was based in Indiana when my grandfather married into it. what country anywhere ever has a history that doensn't involve conquest, rape, genocide? It is the history of the world up till today everywhere everyone. Tell me who?
I don't know how to move this to politics, I understand there is a way, to forward, but I can't figure it out.james k
Posted by Damos on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy » Damos, posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 22:18:19
> ?
> Sea Shepherd?He's the guy who was a founder of Greenpeace but now is a 'lone wolf' activist. He's the one ramming the whaling ship and generally making their life unpleasant. Actually stopping them killing whales. Not just cr*pping on about it.
> All I know is that...
> It is supposed to be a whale sanctury and japan has no territorial claim to the waters...
> Comercial whaling is illegal...
> They aer saying 'scientific research'
> But there was a report and they do not need to kill the whales to find out what they need to know.
> The fact is that they take small tissue samples for the scientific research and the rest finds its way to the commercial market.Go to ninemsn and the 60 minutes site they had a pretty good story on it last night. Especially about the fact that there is NO commercial market for it in Japan. It's all about national pride. I was so very angry.
> NZ wouldn't send a ship to try and stop them...
>
> But greenpeace activists have been trying to hinder things (and gain some publicity for the cause) by getting out there with inflatable dinghies and trying to get between whales and harpoons...
>
> They are asking Australia to not let the ships dock on Aus. land...
> Not let the planes refuel on Aus. land...
>
> But I dunno.... Can't get my old news sources here :-(
> Don't know what has been happening in my corner :-(
>
> > And in my personal opinion the Australian Govt has been (well I can't say it without being PBCd or blocked)on this issue. I dispair at times I do.
>
> (((((Damos)))))(((((agent858)))))
>
> Wanna go protest outside govt house?????Not that sounds like fun ;-)
>
>
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy, posted by James K on March 12, 2006, at 22:34:01
> The civil right movement was never about our indegenous population.
yes you are right. i stand corrected. i realised my mistake a bit after posting and came here to put it right...
> As far as I can tell, remember, we still haven't had a complete civil rights movent for our indegenous people.
though... they are considered people and thus are covered by the human rights stuff around people - right?
> what country anywhere ever has a history that doensn't involve conquest, rape, genocide? It is the history of the world up till today everywhere everyone. Tell me who?
er... the maori (indigenous peoples of new zealand) were considered 'noble savages' which was a way of saying they were people (as opposed to the view that most colonisers had regarding indigenous peoples / savages being no more than animals.
yeah, they got screwed over pretty badly... there was some raping going on (but thats not just about other cultures - right?) and there was the odd incident of 'please come along to church' and then the door was barred and the church set on fire... weren't trying to wipe the whole race or nothing... just fighting over land.
but they were considered people all along. that was my point there really. the thought that black people are people... well... had been thought before...
but there are still some fine intellectual thinkers in the US... i'm just not so sure that the idea that black people are people too was such a radical discovery is all...
;-)
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 7:40:31
In reply to Re: policy » agent858, posted by Damos on March 12, 2006, at 23:15:52
> He's the guy who was a founder of Greenpeace but now is a 'lone wolf' activist. He's the one ramming the whaling ship and generally making their life unpleasant. Actually stopping them killing whales. Not just cr*pping on about it.
ah yeah i know who you mean - i just thought i'd check. yeah... his boat rammed their boat... steel spike... etc etc. greenpeace are trying to distance themselves from him... he is a little too radical for them... trying to get people on side and he is too radical for most i dare say...
funny though. there was an interview and i think he said that they were 'murderers' which of course prompted something of an outcry... hunting animals not people... but then one greenpeace guy managed to position himself a little too close to the harpoon... and now they are saying that the Japanese have shown willingness to continue even though they are putting lives in danger... they are willing to put lives in danger...
i can understand them getting a little pissed...
but imo they shouldn't be whaling in a whale sanctuary somewhere they have no claim to the waters when comercial whaling is illegal and the scientific claim has been undermined by scientific experts...
apparantly the whale sanctury thing...
and the illegality of commercial whaling...is about to be overturned. countries in teh south pacific get to vote on the policy (decide what numbers are required for a pop. to be hunted vs protected etc etc)... and the japanese have offered them some fairly nice donations and trade deals and in response they have decided to cast the votes their way and so it looks like that the next meeting will have the whale sanctury gone and commercial hunting allowed at any rate :-(
> Especially about the fact that there is NO commercial market for it in Japan. It's all about national pride. I was so very angry.
?
Are you sure about that? Really? I thought there was indeed a commercial market. And whale oil etc was used for traditional medicines etc...> > Wanna go protest outside govt house?????
> Not that sounds like fun ;-):-)
Apparantly you can go sit in on sessions and make a pain of yourself at question time :-)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 9:59:44
In reply to Re: policy, posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 18:54:06
"I guess I wonder if it’s possible for someone outside the US to criticize US foreign policy without seeming to be anti-American."
Sure - your post did *exactly* that.
You talked about Kyoto, Iraq, civil rights - all legitimate issues. And you did it without sounding accusing - without saying "Americans" or "you people" or anything that sounds (to me) as if you are talking about the people and not the policies.
As far as policy goes - I probably agree with you more than I do most of our elected officials. In fact, that probably contributes to *why* I get riled when someone sounds like they are anti-American.
Because I am me, Mel, not my country's policies. Sometimes I agree with our 'official' policies, many times I don't. I think of my country the same way I think of my kids - I love it dearly, but sometimes it does things I don't like very much.
And if someone said my kid did something wrong, I might very well agree with him. But if he said I had a bad kid, I'd feel compelled to argue.
Maybe if I didn't live in "the great Satan" I wouldn't be quite so sensitive about it.
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 18:42:39
In reply to Re: To Tamar, posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 9:59:44
> "I guess I wonder if it’s possible for someone outside the US to criticize US foreign policy without seeming to be anti-American."
> Sure - your post did *exactly* that.
ah.... so.... gently does it.
> You talked about Kyoto, Iraq, civil rights - all legitimate issues. And you did it without sounding accusing - without saying "Americans" or "you people" or anything that sounds (to me) as if you are talking about the people and not the policies.ah... very gently does it.
sorry i've been 'up in arms' a bit...
pwpd... but also... getting a bit wound up in general i guess.
> As far as policy goes - I probably agree with you more than I do most of our elected officials. In fact, that probably contributes to *why* I get riled when someone sounds like they are anti-American.i find the 'anti american' thing probably about as hard to take as you take my 'peoples' or 'americans' comments...
> Because I am me, Mel, not my country's policies. Sometimes I agree with our 'official' policies, many times I don't. I think of my country the same way I think of my kids - I love it dearly, but sometimes it does things I don't like very much.i hear you there. i feel the same way about my country.
> And if someone said my kid did something wrong, I might very well agree with him. But if he said I had a bad kid, I'd feel compelled to argue.i understand the distinction there too.
and i guess if you are used to hearing people tell you what a bad kid you have...
you are more likely to be primed to interpret criticism of the US policy / ideal etc as talking about bad kids instead of bad behaviours (or policies or ideals or whatever).
that makes sense.
> Maybe if I didn't live in "the great Satan" I wouldn't be quite so sensitive about it.you know... i haven't heard that one in a while...
it is hard
(((((auntiemel)))))
Posted by Jakeman on March 13, 2006, at 19:23:34
In reply to Re: policy, posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 18:54:06
For some reason the US TV media reports very little outside of the country. The people who watch public broadcasting (PBS) fare a little better.
I do think one has to be careful about making blanket statements about US politics based on current leaders. We have this problem with big money influencing who gets elected. I've lived in the Southern US all my life and their are progressives in every city. The syndicated colunmist Molly Ivins has lived in Texas her whole life. She has a great piece in this month's
"Progressive" magazine. I'd would post a link to it but I'm a little afraid to do that.warm regards, Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2006, at 17:26:57
In reply to Re: policy » agent858, posted by Jakeman on March 13, 2006, at 19:23:34
I wonder - I love Molly Ivens and have a bookmark to her columns.
I'll have to read this one to see if it's out of bounds. Could you give me a few words of the title?
Posted by Jakeman on March 14, 2006, at 20:25:58
In reply to Re: policy » Jakeman, posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2006, at 17:26:57
> I wonder - I love Molly Ivens and have a bookmark to her columns.
>
> I'll have to read this one to see if it's out of bounds. Could you give me a few words of the title?Auntie, try http://www.progressive.org
BTW, she and Ann Richards are both battling cancer these days. I really admire their spirit.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2006, at 9:58:28
In reply to Re: policy, posted by Jakeman on March 14, 2006, at 20:25:58
I take it you are talking about the column on DC dems? It is a good one, I'll give you that.
To all: Molly Ivins is a very satirical columnist who takes no prisoners. This particular column's gist is that the democrats in Washington are too wishy-washy to field a good presidential candidate.
In this column she takes no sides - she disses them all:
http://progressive.org/mag_ivins0306
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 3:34:18
In reply to Re: policy » Jakeman, posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2006, at 9:58:28
> Auntie, try http://www.progressive.org
>
> Jake> > George W. Bush and his Administration have been ... brazen in violating the law and asserting monarchical powers
> the democrats in Washington are too wishy-washy to field a good presidential candidate.
>
> AuntieMelPlease respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Even if you're linking to something else.
But please also don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2006, at 8:51:42
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » Jakeman » AuntieMel, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 3:34:18
Ok, I wasn't trying to be unsensitive. Sorry.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 17:41:04
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2006, at 8:51:42
Posted by Declan on March 16, 2006, at 18:53:00
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » Jakeman » AuntieMel, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 3:34:18
Neither of those statements offend me. Certainly not the one about the Democrats. Interestingly and maybe coincidentally, but maybe not, the same thing is true here with the Australian Labor Party. A failure to find anything to believe in?? It has just occurred to me that I have no idea what this thread is about.
Declan
Posted by Declan on March 16, 2006, at 19:08:38
In reply to Re: policy » agent858, posted by Jakeman on March 13, 2006, at 19:23:34
Jake
I've been particularly struck by the diversity and great differences of opinion between Texans here on Babble. Perhaps this is just because there are quite a few of you here. Or maybe it reflects a wider diversity of opinion than is usual.
Declan
Posted by Jakeman on March 16, 2006, at 19:32:32
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2006, at 8:51:42
> Ok, I wasn't trying to be unsensitive. Sorry.
Me neither.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Jakeman on March 16, 2006, at 19:49:48
In reply to Re: policy » Jakeman, posted by Declan on March 16, 2006, at 19:08:38
Declan,
I think there is a great diversity in opinion in this state and many others. Many people who oppose the current administration just don't vote. Austin's most famous musician, Willie Nelson, has recorded several anti-war songs. But they don't get played on commercial radio. And you know about the Texan, Steve Earle.
warm regards, Jake
> I've been particularly struck by the diversity and great differences of opinion between Texans here on Babble. Perhaps this is just because there are quite a few of you here. Or maybe it reflects a wider diversity of opinion than is usual.
Posted by Jakeman on March 16, 2006, at 20:16:55
In reply to Re: policy » Jakeman, posted by Declan on March 16, 2006, at 19:08:38
Declan,
On the subject of music, there's a very popular bluegrass band here called the Greencards. They are from Australia. A greencard is the document immigrants need to obtain permanent residency. If you marry an American, it's almost assured. I happened to be very impressed by the female lead singer. I told her that maybe I could help her get a greencard. She was nice, but was not persuaded by my offer :-).
warm regards, Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 10:43:46
In reply to Re: policy » Jakeman, posted by Declan on March 16, 2006, at 19:08:38
Are there really that many of us? Jake, me, Phil, Shar, chemist, JamesK, TexasChic, matt. Who am I missing?
Maybe people are just suprised because when they think of Texas they think of oil wells and cowboys. I hear that a lot from people who haven't been here - just as a lot who come to Houston for the first time are surprised at how green it is here - it's actually a semi-tropical environment, not the dry terrains you see in movies and such.
We're also thought of, especially lately, of being extremely conservative, but I'm not sure if that's as true as it looks. One interesting thing about the state is that virtually no one is a 'registered' republican, democrat, or anything else. We aren't required to state any affiliate and I bet any attempts to change that law would be met screaming.
Generally we have a distrust for all things governmental. The governor of the state has almost no power at all. It was funny when Bush first ran and people I knew asked us if he was a good governor. Who would know? I'd say - the governer can't do anything.
The state legislature only meets for 90 days every-other year. They (this is the one power the governor has) can be called for a 'special session' but that session is supposed to address specific issues only.
The governor here can't even pardon a prisoner unless the request is sent to him from the state board of Pardons and Parole. (Though the gov. does appoint the board so they tend to be like-thinking)
All of this is in the state constitution, which was written right after the Reconstruction - the period of occupation following the civil war. That period left such a bad taste the constitution was written so that just about anything would require an ammendment - not too hard to do, but they do require a statewide vote. Even budgets are specified there - what revenues are to go towards which expenses (highways and such) and what revenues (not many) can be put in a 'general' fund. Deficit spending is *not* an option.
People here complain about high taxes, but they are lower than most places. The property tax is a bit steep (local and school only, no state, and they run total between $1.50 and $2.00 for every $100.00 valuation of real estate) but we have no state income tax. And about the valuations - real estate prices here are quite low compared to the rest of the country, so the tax is also fairly low.
We do take pride in our independent thinking, most of us. If truth be told I would guess the folks in the state are actually more libertarian in thinking than either republican or democrat. Too bad the libertarians can't get it together enough to put out some candidates for us.
And we don't do a lot of publicizing ourselves. We like to keep our great life here "our little secret."
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 10:46:57
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » AuntieMel, posted by Jakeman on March 16, 2006, at 19:32:32
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.