Posted on 08/02/2009 9:34:20 PM PDT by Schnucki
It’s been a privilege, says the BBC’s North America editor Justin Webb, returning to London from DC after nearly eight years. And quite a privilege for America too, eh, Justin?
Now, don’t get me wrong: this is not a man who despises ordinary American folks. On the contrary, he appreciates their curious ways:
In more than seven years of life in America, I have come to value - to love, actually - the stolid, sunny, unchallenging, simple virtuousness of the American suburban psyche …Indeed, he forgives all manner of faults:
And yet for all the ugliness, the deadening tawdriness of much of the American landscape and the tinny feebleness of many of its politicians - for all that nastiness and shallowness and flakiness - there is no question in my mind that to live here has been the greatest privilege of my life.The bad side, too, alas:The immensity of America, the energy and the zest for life remind me sometimes of India. And as with India, where I spent some time for the BBC many moons ago, America shines a light on the entire human condition.
America can be seen as little more than an eating competition, a giant, gaudy, manic effort to stuff grease and gunge into already sated innards.You could argue that the sub-prime mortgage crisis - the Ground Zero of the world recession - was caused mainly by greed: a lack of proportion, a lack of proper respect for the natural way of things that persuaded companies to stuff mortgages into the mouths of folks whose credit rating was always likely to induce an eventual spray of vomit.
There is an intellectual ugliness as well: a dark age lurking, even when the president
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
The United States is the greatest country that has ever existed. By any reasonable measurement, it is responsible for doing more good in the world than any other country that has ever existed. Do you dispute that fact?
I agree... All these crises are created for two reasons:
1. For the trial lawyers
2. For the government so they can run and ruin even more of our lives
So we have had different experiences.
What is to say yours is not sincere and real and mine is not sincere and real.
To be sure, I have met my share of cold people who were well-world traveled, and kind hearted people who had not left their state. What's the point? It depends on the person.
I see your point, and I am willing to accept that as well.
Your contention is so solidly supported by indisputahle facts that I have to say I am astonished. But getting back to my original question, how many different Walmart stores have you visited in the last 6 months?
Precisely.
The fruits of Marxism.
You are changing the subject.
You took issue with my contention.
I then responded with a specific fact - namely that America has done more good in the world than any other country that has ever existed. I believe my contention is directly on point in that you were taking issue with the relative merits of America. If you are going to do that, it is incumbent upon you either to acknowledge the great good that America has done as a nation or to point out some other country that has done greater good.
On the other hand, if all you are saying is that America is not perfect - well then that's not not much different than the teenager who gets resentful when he finds out that his parents are not perfect.
I'm not sure I get the gist of your question - are you asking me to make sure I have a statistically valid sample or you personally know of a Walmart that's the exception?
Both views are anecdotal. You will note that I did not accuse you of being insincere, as you put it, or dismiss your comments completely.
You stated:
“Many Americans do NOT like to be told they eat too much, know way too little about the world beyond their borders, or are gullible (just look at the televangelists on Sundays or infomericals late at night and you know something is out of whack.)”
Frankly, many individuals, whether they are German, French, Iranian, or Russian do not like to be told they eat too much, or are gullible, etc.
You also commented:
“Anybody beside me see a problem with America in some regards?”
Would you agree that most citizens of any given country would have some gripe about their homeland?
You noted that some Americans do not like to be criticized, and yet, when I commented on your post your first response was to say, “My point is proven”.
The point of my initial comment was to illuminate the fact that you were validating Mr. Webbs comments when in fact Mr. Webb is a bias, hypocritical ‘purporter’, as I like to call them. I realize that you weren’t necessarily agreeing with Justin Webb’s brand of politics or ideology, but you understand my point.
You were stating the obvious, but you also highlighted a fact that applies to people in any country. These issues aren’t uniquely American, and yet, America is unique.
I think it is ridiculous for you to contend that a nation of 300 million people is obese based on your visits to a Walmart store.
Your statement, I believe it was "light years ahead of any place else, " gave the clear impression that the United States is the greatest nation on the earth in all categories. This cannot be. Anyone who has had the benefit of being overseas for any amount of time can clearly see that or experience that, if they are objective (and cannot see that if they stayed confined to their military base or foreigner's compound out of fear of a foreign culture and only ventured out the back gate once in 24 months for a coca cola from a vending machine).
That place has the best beer. This place is publicly the cleanest. That place had the fastest trains. This place had the coolest cell phone technology and applications. This place had the lowest prices. That place had the best gasoline prices. This place had the most transparent sky for amateur astronomy. That place had the easiest way to send a wire transfer. This place had the highest interconnection speeds and internet diffusion rates. That place had the lowest suicide rates. This place had the most attentive and polite flight attendants. etc. etc. etc.
The US has been extremely generous around the world. That is to say, its people have been that way as a country and in individual capacity. The fact of the matter is, the United States does not dominate everything, nor is it light years ahead of any place else, precisely as you say, and I am prepared to give specific examples. In fact, I assert that it is in decay, particularly under this Obama now. (I just did on the issue of per capital rapes. Clearly not the worst country, but in the top 10, way ahead in this heinous crime than many many other nations. Is that "light years ahead"?
American FAT: BAD
American Teeth: BETTER THAN BRITAIN!
I measure countries the same way I measure people - by how much good they have done. Using that standard, how much good has Japan done in comparison to the United States?
I had no clue that some elitist limey-fool from the America-hating BBC went back to his sh*thole in the UK. The imbecile will be replaced by another Obama-worshipping moron from the UK but I still appreciated the sharp candor from Damian though.
And I think you’re blind!!
Obviously everything is relative. Maybe I’m not looking at this the right way. Maybe the problem is that Europeans and Asians are anorexic.
Yeah, when the professionals were throwin’ that word around; oral hygiene, the Brits thought it was a story about I guy named Oral greeting a fella named Gene.
"Japan emerged as one of the largest foreign aid donors in the world during the 1980s. In 1991 Japan was the second largest foreign aid donor worldwide, behind the United States. Japan's ratio of foreign aid to GNP in this year was 0.32 %, behind the 0.35 % average for the OECD's Development Assistance Committee member countries, but ahead of the United States ratio of 0.20 %. The foreign aid program began in the 1960s out of the reparations payments Japan was obliged to pay to other Asian countries for war damage. The program's budget remained quite low until the late 1970s, when Japan came under increasing pressure from other industrial countries to play a larger role. During the 1980s, Japan's foreign aid budget grew quickly, despite the budget constraints imposed by the effort to reduce the fiscal deficit. From 1984 to 1991, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget increased at an average annual rate of 22.5 %, reaching US$11.1 billion by 1991. Part of this rise was the result of exchange rate movements (with given yen amounts committed in the budget becoming larger dollar amounts). During the 1980s, foreign aid rose at a lower, but still strong, rate of between 4 % and 12 % annually in the government budget, with an average annual rate of growth from 1979 to 1988 of 8.6 %. During the 1970s, the government took positive measures to increase its Official Development Assistance (ODA) to developing countries and to contribute to the stabilization of the international trade and monetary system. These measures were generally welcomed abroad, although some countries felt that the steps taken were not executed as rapidly or were not as extensive as similar efforts by some other advanced industrialized nations. Japan's ODA increased tenfold during the decade and stood at US$3.3 billion in 1980, but this ODA as a percentage of GNP was still below the average of other donor countries. In the 1980s, Japan's ODA continued to rise rapidly. ODA net disbursements, in nominal terms, averaged around US$3 billion per year in the early 1980s and then jumped to US$5.6 billion in 1986 and US$9.1 billion in 1990. Japan's share of total disbursements from major aid donors also grew significantly, from nearly 11.8 % in 1979 to about 15 % in the mid-1980s, and later to more than 19 % in 1989 dropping back to under 17 % in 1990. Japan's ODA as a percentage of its GNP, however, did not increase substantially during the 1980s, remaining at about 0.3 %. Japan continued to concentrate its economic assistance in Asia (about 60 % of total commitments in 1990), reflecting its historical and economic ties to the region. Japan made modest increases in aid to Africa with the announcement in 1989 of a US$600 million grant program for the next three years. In 1990, Japan also pledged large amounts of assistance to Eastern Europe, but most of that aid was to be in the form of market rate credits and investment insurance, which did not qualify as ODA. In other regions, Japan appeared likely to continue allocating relatively small shares of assistance. Nevertheless, by 1987 Japan had become the largest bilateral donor in twenty-nine countries, nearly double the number in which that had been the case ten years earlier. The continued growth of Japan's foreign aid appears to be motivated by two fundamental factors. First, Japanese policy is aimed at assuming international responsibilities commensurate with its position as a global economic power. Second, many believed, the growing Japanese foreign aid program comes largely in response to pressure from the United States and other allies for Japan to take on a greater share of the financial burdens in support of shared security, political, and economic interests. Such assistance consisted of grants and loans and of support for multilateral aid organizations. In 1990 Japan allocated US$6.9 billion of its aid budget to bilateral assistance and US$2.3 billion to multilateral agencies. Of the bilateral assistance, US$3.0 billion went for grants and US$3.9 billion for concessional loans. Bilateral assistance was concentrated in the developing countries of Asia, although modest moves took place in the 1980s to expand the geographical scope of aid. In 1990 some 59.3 % of bilateral development assistance was allocated to Asia, 11.4 % to Africa, 10.2 % to the Middle East, and 8.1 % to Latin America. Asia's share was down somewhat, from 75 % in 1975 and 70 % in 1980, but still accounted for by far the largest share of bilateral aid. During the 1980s, increased aid went to Pakistan and Egypt, partly in response to pressure from the United States to provide such aid for strategic purposes. Japan had little involvement in Africa, but the severe drought of the 1980s brought an increase in the share of development assistance for that continent. The five largest recipients of Japanese ODA in 1990 were in Asia: Indonesia (US$1.1 billion), People's Republic of China (US$832 million), Thailand (US$448.8 million), the Philippines (US$403.8 million), and Bangladesh (US$370.6 million). Earlier in the 1980s, China had been the largest single recipient for several successive years. These large aid amounts made Japan the largest single source of development assistance for most Asian countries. For the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, for example, Japan supplied 55 % of net ODA received in 1987, compared with 11 % from the United States and only 10 % from the multilateral aid agencies. The rapid economic growth and rising competitiveness of China readjusted Sino-Japanese relations, and ODA and yen loans to China will gradually phase out until the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The largest use of Japan's bilateral aid is for economic infrastructure (transportation, communications, river development, and energy development), which accounted for 31.5 % of the total in 1990. Smaller shares went to development of the production sector (17.1 %) and social infrastructure (19.7 %). In general, large construction projects predominate in Japan's bilateral foreign aid. Within the category of social infrastructure, education absorbed 6.7 % of the bilateral aid in 1990, water supply and sanitation made up 3.4 %, and only 2 % went for health. Food aid (0.4 % of total bilateral aid in 1990) and debt relief (4.3 %) also were included in Japan's official development assistance."
According to this, Japan ranks as number 2 in the world, behind the United States. And how many nations in total? 180 or so? Your point? Is this the only category of comparison you wish to discuss? It only validates mine and that is nations have good points in some categories and less than good points in other categories, depending on the issue, and accordingly no one nation is "light years ahead of all others" (an assertion we heard earlier here). How come you on the other hand don't have a discussion about per capita rapes in the US vs. in Japan (did you see the chart) which I made a reference to? I am willing to talk about Japanese foreign aid. Are you willing to talk about rape in America? At the end of the day, you will simply have to accept the premise, very simple at its core, that "sure, America is good at or tops in a lot of things, but not tops and actually very poor in other things as well." That is the kernal of my argument and my position.
” By walking into any WalMart . “
LMAO .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.