The fact that we stand astride the world like a colossus militates for a more, not less, worldly citizenry. It's the disconnect between our global pretensions and the lack of worldliness of our citizens that makes the rest of the world anti-American. And it's hard to make the case that that impulse is misplaced. Soccer is just one of many examples where silly, annoying American "exceptionalism" displays itself.
How can a nation deign to dictate to the world when something on the range of half of the members of its parliament have never held a passport?
A majority of Americans have no need for a passport. And members of congress have no need for one. Diplomatic papers get them where ever they want to go.
America is not like Europe where the countries are small and all it takes to get to the border is a couple hour car ride.
Plus, America has virtually all of the attractions one could ever want.
Chuck Schumer, is that you?
And you call yourself a conservative? How many of these "members of parliament" traveled the world as servicemen to outposts or wars where they didn't need a passport?
Your presumed "intellectual superiority" just isn't!!
My, how pretentious the soccer discussion has become some 200 posts later.
Anyway, I'll chime in so let me say this: Maybe it's qualities possessed by them ("the rest of the world") rather than by us which "makes" "the rest of the world" "anti-American".
For example, if "the rest of the world" is full of jealousy and resentment and a feeling of helplessness, then those very natural human sentiments alone would be enough to "make" them "anti" us. And this would be true no matter what Americans are like or how much "disconnect between our global pretensions and the lack of worldliness of our citizens" there is (or isn't).
There is nothing more annoying than when some know-it-all points to powerless, jealous people indulging in natural human emotions and then insists that those peoples' feelings are my fault. The feelings of other people are not my fault, sir. Can't they control their own feelings? Their jealousy, their resentment, their bitterness? Don't you think foreigners can control those feelings? (Do you think them animals?)
And the corresponding implication, that there would be less anti-Americanism if more American citizens would just become more "worldly", is just silly and I can't believe you actually believe it. Furthermore, what exactly would it mean for us to be more "worldly"? That we watch PBS more? That we embrace socialism more? What?
Oh let me guess, it's all about the soccer... We need to watch soccer, is that it? Like I said, so many "reasons" why we should watch soccer, yet none of them having very much to do with how entertaining the sport is....
Soccer is just one of many examples where silly, annoying American "exceptionalism" displays itself.
Let's parse this. Mr. Joe American dislikes soccer. This is "annoying" to foreigners. Therefore those foreigners, being so "annoyed", dislike America in general.
And this is Joe American's fault, for being "silly", and "exceptional". Therefore he should like soccer (among other things).
This is just nonsense. It's a weak and cowardly argument.
If some foreigners are so "annoyed" by the fact that I don't like soccer, did you ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe this is a psychological issue for them, and not me, to work out for themselves? After all: why the hell do they care which sport I like?
Tell me please, are soccer fans really so insecure?
How can a nation deign to dictate to the world when something on the range of half of the members of its parliament have never held a passport?
Your socio-political comments about the U.S. might be more interesting if you were aware that we don't actually have a "parliament". Best,
1) We are NOT a parliamentray majoritarian democracy. We are a democratic republic. We have a congress NOT a parliament, comprised of a house of representatives and a senate.
Americans don't need passports or anyone's approval. We can be arrogant because we can be. That is the privilege of power and empire.
All sports are alright if one is a participant. It is moronic to be merely a spectator. Much like sex, I would rather be doing the act than watch someone else do it.
The function of sports until modern times was to prepare young men for the skills of war and combat. Few modern sports achive this with the possible exception of rugby and football.
Running around on a pitch in your underwear for 90 minutes kicking a ball may prepare you for running (usually away from the battle) but it does nothing to prepare young men for the rigors of combat nor to steele them for the hardships to be endured.
As a conservative my preference is for blood sports such as gladiatorial combat which I feel should be brought back as a way to empty out our prisons on a yearly basis.
I think most people would pay good money to watch convicts fight to the death so they may live to fight the next day. It would increase the revenue to the state thereby allowing for a lowering of taxes and minimize the cost of keeping convicted criminals incarcerated.
It would also desensitize us to the blood gore and brutality and therefore prevent us from becoming wimpy afeminate liberals.