Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I only wish more countries employed nurses as anesthetists. I would have no problem whatever abandoning the US at this point in my life. Even in the short time I've been alive, the country I live in today is a very different place from the one in which I grew up - and mostly not in a good way. I know there's no perfect place on earth, and that dukkha follows us everywhere, but America has become such a helter-skelter place that I think it's an unhealthy environment for me.
I'm trying to figure out how I can at least spend several months a year someplace 'unplugged' and warm. I can probably put up with America for the balance of the time as long as I know I have somewhere to go that's a refuge.
Hello ShiftPlusOne, You wrote, “Eric D, why would anyone be proud or ashamed of their country's history? I wasn't born when any of that was going on and my ancestors were nowhere near. We just have to accept history and learn from it rather than be proud or ashamed of it. A lot of racism is based on 'pride'... pride of things they had nothing to do with. 'White Pride', 'Black Pride', 'Asian Pride', 'Aussie Pride' and so on... they are all used to support racist ideas. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with pride of and conservation of your heritage, but that doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else.
You'd only have to go on stormfront (a White nationalist forum) for a couple of minutes to see how pride can degenerate otherwise good people. Sadly, many of them believe with all their heart that what they support is good.
Anyway, my point is that the history is only there to learn from (though nobody does anyway), not to judge. There's also no reason to be proud, especially for things which weren't done with your own hands.”
I must have miscommunicated my position somehow…hmm…I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think my overall point was that for someone who’s thinking of leaving because of all the “assholes” in the country etc…and I had read why so many others would leave or where they would go or recommend going, I was merely stating why I would stay. I think an answer to the “why” was in order since so many have reason to leave…just giving my point of view was all. If others wish to go, that’s fine. As to your general point-however. We do all share in a collective karma, i.e., we share a history, culture, and a legal-moral order that we ourselves do not own-so to speak. These, and other, elements emerge from a history in which we share and have some identity with. In this respect history is much more than a subject to merely learn from. We are all a part of its flow and force. Yet, we can break from identity--collective and individually--in order to achieve a level of understanding that transcends these useful fictions. So, we can be proud in the conventional sense while being ashamed in the same sense as well. We can also not give in to the avoidance of the shame we feel and accept this history—collective and individual—as you well pointed out above. We must make peace with our darker sides in order to continue on the path successfully-I agree! Yet, in the mix and mire of this identity we attempt to make life better-relieve suffering and point out the problems to be overcome-without the illusion that we would ever get rid of “problems” altogether. In this way, we make a connection between conventional and ultimate truth! I see no necessary contradiction here. Anyway, I hope this clarifies a bit, Thanks Eric D.
...............Our Founders were hardly perfect—but given the rest of the world at that time-the documents that emerged from their endeavors were truly revolutionary in a way we can hardly appreciate today-living in a world where most states attempt some version of a Republic-or Modern-state organization. Thanks all, Eric D.
I wish that I shall be around to see the outcome of the US poltico-economic and social experiment but, as someone wisely said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say if it is going to be a success.
Hello, Johnathan, You wrote, “Hey Eric... Care to elaborate on this... I have been a Canadian my whole life and have lived in both Alberta and Nova Scotia and I do not see any sign of this... In fact I see the opposite... I see that most churches are seeing great declines in number and as the baby boomer's generation passes on we will see an even greater decline in most (western) religious groups across this country. Every church I have been in I have noticed that its parishioners are made up of 75% or more of elderly people... the other 25% is made up of mostly 30-60 year olds and a very, very small number of teens and children...”
I don’t wish to argue that Canadian conservative movements are equal to the US in its scope or scale of fanatic-like belief in capitalist markets, social conservative agendas, or that it will in any way move that way into the future. I wrote, “In Canada, conservative religious and economic groups are making much stronger headway than many more liberal Americans here would be comfortable with.” The point is that many who move away from here thinking that Canada is a land of enlightened liberals may feel quite uncomfortable to discover that Canada, while still quite more progressive than America, has had and does have strong currents of economic and social conservative forces and they have made a stronger showing than many American liberals here might be comfortable with. While you believe conservatism in your country will die with the baby-boom generation, it may not! Remember that many progressive-like thinkers thought that was the case here in the 60’s and 70’s. They were wrong! Arguably, it is in part the liberal elites in our country that ignored the appeal and force of these movements that helps, in part, to explain their successful re-emergence. Progressive-thinkers in Canada and this country should consider this as well when thinking of the future of Canada. For example, the Progressive Conservative Party was successful in getting the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) of 1989 passed- and NAFTA that added Mexico to the agreement-a highly non-protectionist –pro- neo-conservative move…all of this under Martin Brian Mulroney a company man who could hardly be considered a hardened progressive. Also, Stephen Harper-the first Prime Minister of the newly reconstituted Conservative Party won the general election with 68.9% of the vote, whose opposition to same sex marriage is well known in Canadian politics! He also excluded funding for abortions in Canada’s G8 health plan, which was praised by the Archbishop of Quebec. There is good reason to be concerned by this and potential movements that could gain a stronger hold in Canadian politics in the future. Also, Marci McDonald argues in "The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada” that Stephen Harper is catering to the religious right in Canada in order to bolster his base. There’s some good reason to think this. In recent years “the top echelons of power in Ottawa have come under the influence of a growing right-wing religious movement…” which paints a potential danger that is progressing in many parts of Canadian life and political thought. It should be known that many of the issues that have plagued US social debate are also causing much distress in Canadian polity—gay rights, abortion and so on. Again, I do not wish to turn this into a debate about Canadian polity. All I’m saying is that those who think that the picture is clear cut and progressively secured there, or anywhere in the industrial world, is likely to be disappointed to find out it is hardly the case. Last year I was in Canada, Vancouver, with some friends-all of which supported a more hardline conservative approach to Canadian politics there. My sister’s pastor, who comes from the Canadian Bible belt, also claims to have large numbers of family and associates back home who strongly support a shift in the liberal Canadian government. If one thinks Canada is a country that is solidly liberal and filled with only giving and understanding people, he/she will likely be grossly disappointed. I think that Michael Moore seeing Canada as largely progressive and filled with forward thinking people is accurate. Yet, there are these impulses and they are gaining some leeway in certain quarters of that country. This, again, will not sit well with those American progressives that are moving there expecting to hear overwhelming praise for liberal ideology and political thought. They will likely be disappointed with what they find. Thanks for the discussion,
Thanks for your well thought out response... I was not saying you were wrong in my post above, was just asking you for elaboration which you did quite well... I guess you are more educated on whats happening in Canada than I do... On a ground level I don't see much of what you describe but thats not to say it isn't there... I haven't watched TV in 7 months and I rarely listen to the news on the radio... When I did I found US politics much more interesting...
I was not implying any decline in political conservatism... my opinion was focused on religious conservatism, which I would assume you are referring to fundamentalist Christianity or Christianity as a whole... It is in our news all the time that Church numbers are declining, its apparent when you walk into churches... In 10-20 years when the majority of 60-80 yr olds are gone, I do not see a large mass of younger people of the faith to fill their place. At the same time I see more people than ever seeking answers in non-Christian faiths.
I love the social system, and I think taxes are too low on the expense of society as a whole. In my perfect world education, health care and day care is free (tax paid - not really free). That's the way it is in Denmark today, but the public debate it toxic and more than 14% voters vote for the racist right-wing. I cannot live under those conditions (well I can, but I won't). My education will ensure me that I can get a job almost anywhere when I'm done in 4½ (maybe 7½ if I want to take the lawyer education after law school) years. I don't think I owe this country my future tax money, 'cause the government (chosen by the voters) are ruining everything I loved about this place. Then I might as well move to the next-best thing.
Fair enough. Yeah, I'm certainly weary of moving a racist country. That being said, I'm not used to much racial diversity in my country, so it will always take some kind of getting used to.
I think most people from abroad misinterpret a large space for reservedness.
Oh I do like directness. But I also like affection. I'm not the kind of guy to talk about the whether. I like deep discussions. But for some reason, I get this idea scandinavian countries & Denmark, are not very in touch with their feelings. That's something I'm weary of.
no matter where you go, you take your mind with you dear
what i want to say is, if we find fault with others, the fault is with us and we have to change it
i hope you understand what i mean
happy landing!!
Kind of, but I don't agree. The Buda would also recommend to stay away from fools. If I wanted to deal with fools and certain kinds of faults, I'd just stay put. I believe there are some places better than others depending on the aspects we are considering. I would never go to Germany for example because people are more systematic and cold that what I like. It doesn't matter whether it's a problem on my part or theirs....but it's a fact it would take a lot getting used to....and I don't want to make a change that doesn't improve my situation in any way.
Hello Simonthepilgrim! You wrote, “I wish that I shall be around to see the outcome of the US poltico-economic and social experiment but, as someone wisely said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say if it is going to be a success.”
This reminds me of Edmund Burke’s views on the French and American Revolutions. By the way, he’ considered the father of Conservatism by many. He thought that the French Revolution was not a legitimate revolution because in order to achieve its objectives it forcibly dismantled key-long held institutions with nothing adequate to supplant them. In basic, these institutions have stood the test of time and while they can or even must change over time, a society should move slowly and cautiously in so doing. As a consequence, Burke approved of the American Revolution. The American colonies, in his view, removed the ruling government but not the institutions and form of law that any society needs in order to function. Given this, I think we can say that the American experiment has, on the whole, already been a success. It has been one of the very few examples, and –in fact-for its time-the preeminent one, that succeeded in having opposing parties take over power lawfully and in an orderly way. Even our Civil War was handled through an organized means and application of law. I suppose within that context, the American experiment is an ongoing and never ending project. I hope it does-it has much more to learn and go in order to contribute to its own people and those of the world.
Hi, Eric D. My point about Native American activists is that from our point of view they "could have left", but from their point of view, psychologically, they couldn't have. We're a more rootless people, having arrived here from another continent, so our perception is that it's not so difficult to pick up and leave.
But that's beside your main point, as you mention. I used to agree with you that people who are disgruntled with policies and politics/economics in their home country should stick it out and work to improve things. I'm not so sure about that anymore in the US context. I think that corporate interests have consolidated such a strong hold over politics, that our problems may not be fixable by the ballot box; it may be naive at this point to think that they can.
RE: the Bush elections; Kerry did wimp out on election night, and chose to move on, stating publicly that he felt he could be more effective as a senator than as President. That's beside the point. After the Kerry election an endless litany of electoral malfeasance in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere was investigated; lost votes in NM alone (a swing state) could have put Kerry into the Presidency if they'd been recounted and recovered. As I live in NM, I'll give that example. It was proven in federal court that poor ethnic communities in NM (Hispanic and Native American)across the board had been issued faulty voting machines, many of which did not register any vote for President. There was a lawsuit against the state of NM (Lopategui vs. Vigil-Giron), which by way of settlement required NM to use ballots marked by hand in all future federal elections. Furthermore, it's well-known now that African-American voters were prevented from voting in Florida and Ohio. The enormous scale of injustice that has been perpetrated and documented can't and shouldn't be dismissed with glib claims of conspiracy theories. This would only compound the crimes that have been committed.
Your comments here remind me of a Christopher Hitchens interview on Fox News once when it was touted in that interview that America is a Christian country and so on and so forth. Hitchens promptly pointed out how throughout the Midwest and the South churches are largely empty-and most are in their homes come Sunday morning. If you look at stats here, depending on “when” and “where” you can find such stats and seeing what they info they cover and incorporate into the overall data, you will also notice a decline. You may find, however, what is called mega-churches forming throughout the country. So you may well have large churches instead of a hundred more small ones. It can, therefore, be somewhat difficult to determine how to calculate this with much accuracy. However, my point is when it comes to voting and what influences social and political thought church attendance may not be the best way to measure how the religious right is growing or how it is influencing the political course of events. People often sit at home on Sunday while tenaciously holding views that are hardcore right of the spectrum.
I hope it is the case that the religious right is weakening on the whole there. Some data shows that it isn’t in all Provinces-however-perhaps the opposite in fact. The problem here is that the Canadian government of recent years has certainly moved in that direction. Also, I wouldn’t say that religious right-wing movements have the majority here either; however, they are more influential because they happen to be more active. This may be what’s starting to occur there-don’t really know nor will we for some time-I think. I take your point and certainly would love to see the spread of Buddhism in Canada! What a wonderful thing to have happen to an already wonderful country! Thanx again, Eric D.
Hello Dakini, You wrote, “Hi, Eric D. My point about Native American activists is that from our point of view they "could have left", but from their point of view, psychologically, they couldn't have. We're a more rootless people, having arrived here from another continent, so our perception is that it's not so difficult to pick up and leave. “
I would dispute that they are and did leave both by force, as is commonly known, and by will. In the last century- plus- Native Americans have left there tribes and Reservations in droves. In fact, in many places it is uncertain what sort of future these peoples and their cultures will face if these run-offs continue. Leaving the country is hardly inconcievable in such a context. I would think your point here would be a rather contentious one. Many Euro-Americans by the mid-20th century had large scale families here as well and leaving the country I imagine would have been quite difficult “psychologically." So, my point is that by the mid-late 20th century these minorities had opportunity to leave far more so than any of their predecessors. I don’t think anyone wishes to argue that these people had to fight at all times--that they had no real interest in making their presence a part of the American character due to the mere difficulties of being unable to leave. Even now many minorities fight for their rightful place in our national system. Their victories ought not be overlooked or explained away as mere “cultural psychology” that somehow influenced them to take up the banner of Civil Rights. These people chose to take a brave stance and I think they should be praised for such a choice.
You wrote, “But that's beside your main point, as you mention. I used to agree with you that people who are disgruntled with policies and politics/economics in their home country should stick it out and work to improve things. I'm not so sure about that anymore in the US context. I think that corporate interests have consolidated such a strong hold over politics, that our problems may not be fixable by the ballot box; it may be naive at this point to think that they can.”
I fully understand your point here! I also agree with you that corporate power has gained an enormous stronghold here. However, I think it is equally questionable to think that this is a unique American problem. I agree it is intensified here. I also think it is quite possible that corporate power can sort of “win out” as the economic classes clash for economic and political survival. The problem is not just American corporate power-though. It is multi-national corporate power that is the full threat. In that context most every industrialized nation has considerable involvement and interest in expanding their banks and international bargaining power through these non-national entities. It is true that there are countries that have a sterner attitude towards such an influence. Yet, they are influences in these countries and their economies are still connected to American corps—especially banking corporations. If the banks, of which 6 control 65-68% of our GDP, go under-this will create a ripple effect around every heavily investing country in the world. So merely leaving the US is hardly going to allow any of us to escape the problem.
Also, if we can identify problems in voting procedures, know how our Federal debt works, and have access to a robust history and data about how the middle class has fared over the past 25 years-it would seem to me that identifying the issues are hardly the problem. It is convincing those in the electorate to support policies that take our knowledge on these issues and force our legislators to act on our will! The history is clear, however. The battle between the upper class and the other two classes isn’t a current day problem. It is an issue that has marked our very history. In one sense, it is why we fought an entire Civil War. Over 600,000 died in that war-I don’t think we’re there yet. It is important to keep our current struggles in the general context of our overall historical struggles. While we face enormous challenges for sure, we have an enormous base of progressive elements in this country that is quite unlike it ever was. It may come to naught-but it may not. I simply choose to fight for the cause in the belief that it won’t.
You wrote,
“RE: the Bush elections; Kerry did wimp out on election night, and chose to move on, stating publicly that he felt he could be more effective as a senator than as President. That's beside the point. After the Kerry election an endless litany of electoral malfeasance in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere was investigated; lost votes in NM alone (a swing state) could have put Kerry into the Presidency if they'd been recounted and recovered. As I live in NM, I'll give that example. It was proven in federal court that poor ethnic communities in NM (Hispanic and Native American)across the board had been issued faulty voting machines, many of which did not register any vote for President. There was a lawsuit against the state of NM (Lopategui vs. Vigil-Giron), which by way of settlement required NM to use ballots marked by hand in all future federal elections. Furthermore, it's well-known now that African-American voters were prevented from voting in Florida and Ohio. The enormous scale of injustice that has been perpetrated and documented can't and shouldn't be dismissed with glib claims of conspiracy theories. This would only compound the crimes that have been committed. “
Actually Kerry conceded and on November 3, 2004 he delivered his concession speech. Believing he had lost the election he simply decided to move on. You are correct that there were a number of election irregularities in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere. My point wasn’t that there are no voting issues. My point was that the case that there’s some sort of cabal or organized front controlling the elections in this country is more belief than fact! Let’s use your example as an instance here. The New Mexico case Lopategui vs. Vigil-Giron. Here are the facts of the case: In January 2005, a group of New Mexico voters filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court seeking to halt the continued use of electronic voting machines in elections in the state on the grounds that it violated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote. The lawsuit, which named the New Mexico Secretary of State as a defendant, followed evidence emerging from the 2004 presidential recount in New Mexico that revealed the unreliability of DRE voting systems for the proper counting and recording of votes. The plaintiffs negotiated a temporary settlement and worked with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to propose an overhaul to the state’s voting systems. In February 2006, Governor Richardson introduced legislation to make New Mexico an all optically-scanned paper ballot state, thereby effectively banning the use of DRE voting systems. The New Mexico legislature subsequently adopted the proposed legislation, and election results from November 2006 showed that New Mexico’s under vote rate had dramatically decreased.
Now, these are the mere facts of the case. There was evidence that what we had there was a case of under-voting by these DRE machines for proper counting. There was no evidence that there was an organized front of some sort fixing the elections--nor can we be sure of the results. We know that there was a decline in New Mexico’s under vote rate in the 2006 elections. The problem here was that there was simply no way to be sure that these machines were as accurate as we’d like them to be and there was evidence of this in the 04 election results. It’s important to note that this is an important issue and I agree with you that these kinds of things need to be looked at. However, characterizing these issues as some sort of conspiracy or that if all the votes everywhere were counted properly, Kerry would have most certainly won that election is more of what one believes than what one can know with certainty. Those statements are quite controversial. The whole point of the case was that there was no real way for the voting public to know what the real numbers are by use of these machines. By the way, this isn’t just an issue for we progressives-it is an issue for all of us! If these machines are not up to par for Democrats they are likely inaccurate-period! Also, it is true that minorities have issues of access and fairness when it comes to voting. However, this is hardly nothing new. As I wrote in my original post-this is a severe problem that needs to be aggressively addressed by our state legislatures and Federal officials-no disagreement there!
Just briefly, EricD (or we'll find ourselves writing a book, here ), the WTO hasn't done the world any favors; corporate interests are everywhere. But comparing the US to Europe it seems that corporations have always had more influence over our lives, here. Corporations don't determine the curriculum in universities (medical, forestry, etc.) in Europe, and they don't trash the public tranportation system, as they did in the US in the 1950's, to sell the public on cars. Gotta go--I'm out of time.
I think I'll remain in England but take long holidays in whichever country is top of the "Happiest Countries in the World" list LOL. If I'm soaking up culture I might as well soak up a happy culture. At the present it's apparently Denmark. It says, however: Just like Sweden, Denmark is a Nordic welfare state with most of its services free to the citizens. Expect to pay 72% of your money to the government on the highest income tax bracket. According to Wikipedia Denmark has the worlds highest taxes! When buying a car in Denmark one has to pay 25% VAT to the import price of the vehicle and then a 180% registration tax on top. That means when a car sells for $20 000, you have to pay an additional $45 000 as taxes for the government (total of $65 000). That’s why people in Denmark ride bikes or use one of the best public transport systems in the world. Denmark also has 2 autonomous provinces – the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The latter is over 50 times larger than Denmark but has about 100 times less people.
I don't get how that classifies the people being happy, but maybe they use the taxes well. I don't know.
No one has mentioned the Kingdom of Bhutan- a Buddhist 'monarchy' for lack of a better term- the king has an offical policy of 'gross domestic happiness'- this manifests itself in what types of television programs, movies, cloting, tourism, development, etc is allowed into the country. the only issue is that it is a very rugged and agrarian country between Nepal and Tibet. Seriously, sometimes the best place to live is where you are at, where you feel comfortable. The US certainly is not perfect, but how many of the world's people try desperately to enter our country each year to start a new life? Here we have choice to live our lives as we se fit- decisions are not made for us in the name of an 'enlightened' policy- from what I've heard of 'gross domestic happiness', I would support close to 100% of the particulars- the only problem is that I would be living in a society where mindfulness of my own actions, thoughts and choices would not be important. Be careful of the place that looks 'perfect' because all of the people are just like you in their thinking- it may not be that great. Be your true self no matter where you live, and learn to accept and deal with assholes for who they are- people just like us suffering in delusion and anger. :hiding: :hiding:
Butan is no longer a monarchy, but still has its Gross National Happiness policy. But in view of the restrictive tourism policies, I'd doubt one could emigrate to Bhutan, unless one had a skill that was very useful to them, possibly. Nice dream, though.
Hello Dakini, You wrote, “Just briefly, EricD (or we'll find ourselves writing a book, here ), the WTO hasn't done the world any favors; corporate interests are everywhere. But comparing the US to Europe it seems that corporations have always had more influence over our lives, here. Corporations don't determine the curriculum in universities (medical, forestry, etc.) in Europe, and they don't trash the public transportation system, as they did in the US in the 1950's, to sell the public on cars.”
I wholly agree that corporations have been more aggressive here in the last century plus…indeed the rail-car vs. the engine-bought bus system was a clear case—one of many—where corporate power took hold and advanced its agenda. One could argue this has been a progressive case since the Civil War where chartered businesses began to boom. Also, there was the huge legal victory for corporations in the 1886 Supreme Court ruling on the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case. It hasn’t always been that way. In fact, in Europe chartered companies were much stronger. Arguably, they played a key role in the causes of the Revolutionary war…just see the East Indian Company’s role in the pre-Revolutionary period as a definite agitator of the British government on colonial economics. In fact, it is undoubtedly one of the reasons why our country had very strict laws on early corporations for the first 100 plus years. It is also why it requires states to charter such business organizations-obviously.
In my previous post I agreed with you that other countries do take a more firm stance towards corporations than we do. I admit that we are the seeming epicenter for powerful corporate forces in the world. But all of that supports my overall point! It is precisely that our investment markets-and corporate control influences international trade and governs markets around the world. In fact, they are key to the success of those markets. While Europe’s people are governed in certain ways that have little direct contact with the corporate world, their social-political and key markets are almost utterly reliant on corporate activity. There’s far more going on here than what goes into American textbooks or how we travel on our roads. All markets are interconnected. Moreover, most of these markets (which are much of Europe) are largely dependent on the success and influence of ours. If we don’t deal with corporate power here-nowhere is safe! We certainly agree that there’s an issue either way and we must contend with it-regardless!
Comments
I'm trying to figure out how I can at least spend several months a year someplace 'unplugged' and warm. I can probably put up with America for the balance of the time as long as I know I have somewhere to go that's a refuge.
You wrote,
“Eric D, why would anyone be proud or ashamed of their country's history? I wasn't born when any of that was going on and my ancestors were nowhere near. We just have to accept history and learn from it rather than be proud or ashamed of it. A lot of racism is based on 'pride'... pride of things they had nothing to do with. 'White Pride', 'Black Pride', 'Asian Pride', 'Aussie Pride' and so on... they are all used to support racist ideas. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with pride of and conservation of your heritage, but that doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else.
You'd only have to go on stormfront (a White nationalist forum) for a couple of minutes to see how pride can degenerate otherwise good people. Sadly, many of them believe with all their heart that what they support is good.
Anyway, my point is that the history is only there to learn from (though nobody does anyway), not to judge. There's also no reason to be proud, especially for things which weren't done with your own hands.”
I must have miscommunicated my position somehow…hmm…I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think my overall point was that for someone who’s thinking of leaving because of all the “assholes” in the country etc…and I had read why so many others would leave or where they would go or recommend going, I was merely stating why I would stay. I think an answer to the “why” was in order since so many have reason to leave…just giving my point of view was all. If others wish to go, that’s fine.
As to your general point-however. We do all share in a collective karma, i.e., we share a history, culture, and a legal-moral order that we ourselves do not own-so to speak. These, and other, elements emerge from a history in which we share and have some identity with. In this respect history is much more than a subject to merely learn from. We are all a part of its flow and force. Yet, we can break from identity--collective and individually--in order to achieve a level of understanding that transcends these useful fictions. So, we can be proud in the conventional sense while being ashamed in the same sense as well. We can also not give in to the avoidance of the shame we feel and accept this history—collective and individual—as you well pointed out above. We must make peace with our darker sides in order to continue on the path successfully-I agree! Yet, in the mix and mire of this identity we attempt to make life better-relieve suffering and point out the problems to be overcome-without the illusion that we would ever get rid of “problems” altogether. In this way, we make a connection between conventional and ultimate truth! I see no necessary contradiction here.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies a bit,
Thanks Eric D.
You wrote,
“Hey Eric... Care to elaborate on this... I have been a Canadian my whole life and have lived in both Alberta and Nova Scotia and I do not see any sign of this... In fact I see the opposite... I see that most churches are seeing great declines in number and as the baby boomer's generation passes on we will see an even greater decline in most (western) religious groups across this country. Every church I have been in I have noticed that its parishioners are made up of 75% or more of elderly people... the other 25% is made up of mostly 30-60 year olds and a very, very small number of teens and children...”
I don’t wish to argue that Canadian conservative movements are equal to the US in its scope or scale of fanatic-like belief in capitalist markets, social conservative agendas, or that it will in any way move that way into the future. I wrote, “In Canada, conservative religious and economic groups are making much stronger headway than many more liberal Americans here would be comfortable with.” The point is that many who move away from here thinking that Canada is a land of enlightened liberals may feel quite uncomfortable to discover that Canada, while still quite more progressive than America, has had and does have strong currents of economic and social conservative forces and they have made a stronger showing than many American liberals here might be comfortable with. While you believe conservatism in your country will die with the baby-boom generation, it may not! Remember that many progressive-like thinkers thought that was the case here in the 60’s and 70’s. They were wrong! Arguably, it is in part the liberal elites in our country that ignored the appeal and force of these movements that helps, in part, to explain their successful re-emergence. Progressive-thinkers in Canada and this country should consider this as well when thinking of the future of Canada.
For example, the Progressive Conservative Party was successful in getting the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) of 1989 passed- and NAFTA that added Mexico to the agreement-a highly non-protectionist –pro- neo-conservative move…all of this under Martin Brian Mulroney a company man who could hardly be considered a hardened progressive. Also, Stephen Harper-the first Prime Minister of the newly reconstituted Conservative Party won the general election with 68.9% of the vote, whose opposition to same sex marriage is well known in Canadian politics! He also excluded funding for abortions in Canada’s G8 health plan, which was praised by the Archbishop of Quebec. There is good reason to be concerned by this and potential movements that could gain a stronger hold in Canadian politics in the future.
Also, Marci McDonald argues in "The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada” that Stephen Harper is catering to the religious right in Canada in order to bolster his base. There’s some good reason to think this. In recent years “the top echelons of power in Ottawa have come under the influence of a growing right-wing religious movement…” which paints a potential danger that is progressing in many parts of Canadian life and political thought. It should be known that many of the issues that have plagued US social debate are also causing much distress in Canadian polity—gay rights, abortion and so on.
Again, I do not wish to turn this into a debate about Canadian polity. All I’m saying is that those who think that the picture is clear cut and progressively secured there, or anywhere in the industrial world, is likely to be disappointed to find out it is hardly the case. Last year I was in Canada, Vancouver, with some friends-all of which supported a more hardline conservative approach to Canadian politics there. My sister’s pastor, who comes from the Canadian Bible belt, also claims to have large numbers of family and associates back home who strongly support a shift in the liberal Canadian government. If one thinks Canada is a country that is solidly liberal and filled with only giving and understanding people, he/she will likely be grossly disappointed. I think that Michael Moore seeing Canada as largely progressive and filled with forward thinking people is accurate. Yet, there are these impulses and they are gaining some leeway in certain quarters of that country. This, again, will not sit well with those American progressives that are moving there expecting to hear overwhelming praise for liberal ideology and political thought. They will likely be disappointed with what they find.
Thanks for the discussion,
Eric D.
Thanks for your well thought out response... I was not saying you were wrong in my post above, was just asking you for elaboration which you did quite well... I guess you are more educated on whats happening in Canada than I do... On a ground level I don't see much of what you describe but thats not to say it isn't there... I haven't watched TV in 7 months and I rarely listen to the news on the radio... When I did I found US politics much more interesting...
I was not implying any decline in political conservatism... my opinion was focused on religious conservatism, which I would assume you are referring to fundamentalist Christianity or Christianity as a whole... It is in our news all the time that Church numbers are declining, its apparent when you walk into churches... In 10-20 years when the majority of 60-80 yr olds are gone, I do not see a large mass of younger people of the faith to fill their place. At the same time I see more people than ever seeking answers in non-Christian faiths.
Kind of, but I don't agree. The Buda would also recommend to stay away from fools. If I wanted to deal with fools and certain kinds of faults, I'd just stay put. I believe there are some places better than others depending on the aspects we are considering. I would never go to Germany for example because people are more systematic and cold that what I like. It doesn't matter whether it's a problem on my part or theirs....but it's a fact it would take a lot getting used to....and I don't want to make a change that doesn't improve my situation in any way.
You wrote,
“I wish that I shall be around to see the outcome of the US poltico-economic and social experiment but, as someone wisely said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say if it is going to be a success.”
This reminds me of Edmund Burke’s views on the French and American Revolutions. By the way, he’ considered the father of Conservatism by many. He thought that the French Revolution was not a legitimate revolution because in order to achieve its objectives it forcibly dismantled key-long held institutions with nothing adequate to supplant them. In basic, these institutions have stood the test of time and while they can or even must change over time, a society should move slowly and cautiously in so doing. As a consequence, Burke approved of the American Revolution. The American colonies, in his view, removed the ruling government but not the institutions and form of law that any society needs in order to function. Given this, I think we can say that the American experiment has, on the whole, already been a success. It has been one of the very few examples, and –in fact-for its time-the preeminent one, that succeeded in having opposing parties take over power lawfully and in an orderly way. Even our Civil War was handled through an organized means and application of law. I suppose within that context, the American experiment is an ongoing and never ending project. I hope it does-it has much more to learn and go in order to contribute to its own people and those of the world.
Thanx for the convo,
Eric D.
But that's beside your main point, as you mention. I used to agree with you that people who are disgruntled with policies and politics/economics in their home country should stick it out and work to improve things. I'm not so sure about that anymore in the US context. I think that corporate interests have consolidated such a strong hold over politics, that our problems may not be fixable by the ballot box; it may be naive at this point to think that they can.
RE: the Bush elections; Kerry did wimp out on election night, and chose to move on, stating publicly that he felt he could be more effective as a senator than as President. That's beside the point. After the Kerry election an endless litany of electoral malfeasance in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere was investigated; lost votes in NM alone (a swing state) could have put Kerry into the Presidency if they'd been recounted and recovered. As I live in NM, I'll give that example. It was proven in federal court that poor ethnic communities in NM (Hispanic and Native American)across the board had been issued faulty voting machines, many of which did not register any vote for President. There was a lawsuit against the state of NM (Lopategui vs. Vigil-Giron), which by way of settlement required NM to use ballots marked by hand in all future federal elections. Furthermore, it's well-known now that African-American voters were prevented from voting in Florida and Ohio. The enormous scale of injustice that has been perpetrated and documented can't and shouldn't be dismissed with glib claims of conspiracy theories. This would only compound the crimes that have been committed.
Thanks for the response!
Your comments here remind me of a Christopher Hitchens interview on Fox News once when it was touted in that interview that America is a Christian country and so on and so forth. Hitchens promptly pointed out how throughout the Midwest and the South churches are largely empty-and most are in their homes come Sunday morning. If you look at stats here, depending on “when” and “where” you can find such stats and seeing what they info they cover and incorporate into the overall data, you will also notice a decline. You may find, however, what is called mega-churches forming throughout the country. So you may well have large churches instead of a hundred more small ones. It can, therefore, be somewhat difficult to determine how to calculate this with much accuracy. However, my point is when it comes to voting and what influences social and political thought church attendance may not be the best way to measure how the religious right is growing or how it is influencing the political course of events. People often sit at home on Sunday while tenaciously holding views that are hardcore right of the spectrum.
I hope it is the case that the religious right is weakening on the whole there. Some data shows that it isn’t in all Provinces-however-perhaps the opposite in fact. The problem here is that the Canadian government of recent years has certainly moved in that direction. Also, I wouldn’t say that religious right-wing movements have the majority here either; however, they are more influential because they happen to be more active. This may be what’s starting to occur there-don’t really know nor will we for some time-I think.
I take your point and certainly would love to see the spread of Buddhism in Canada! What a wonderful thing to have happen to an already wonderful country!
Thanx again,
Eric D.
You wrote,
“Hi, Eric D. My point about Native American activists is that from our point of view they "could have left", but from their point of view, psychologically, they couldn't have. We're a more rootless people, having arrived here from another continent, so our perception is that it's not so difficult to pick up and leave. “
I would dispute that they are and did leave both by force, as is commonly known, and by will. In the last century- plus- Native Americans have left there tribes and Reservations in droves. In fact, in many places it is uncertain what sort of future these peoples and their cultures will face if these run-offs continue. Leaving the country is hardly inconcievable in such a context. I would think your point here would be a rather contentious one. Many Euro-Americans by the mid-20th century had large scale families here as well and leaving the country I imagine would have been quite difficult “psychologically." So, my point is that by the mid-late 20th century these minorities had opportunity to leave far more so than any of their predecessors. I don’t think anyone wishes to argue that these people had to fight at all times--that they had no real interest in making their presence a part of the American character due to the mere difficulties of being unable to leave. Even now many minorities fight for their rightful place in our national system. Their victories ought not be overlooked or explained away as mere “cultural psychology” that somehow influenced them to take up the banner of Civil Rights. These people chose to take a brave stance and I think they should be praised for such a choice.
You wrote,
“But that's beside your main point, as you mention. I used to agree with you that people who are disgruntled with policies and politics/economics in their home country should stick it out and work to improve things. I'm not so sure about that anymore in the US context. I think that corporate interests have consolidated such a strong hold over politics, that our problems may not be fixable by the ballot box; it may be naive at this point to think that they can.”
I fully understand your point here! I also agree with you that corporate power has gained an enormous stronghold here. However, I think it is equally questionable to think that this is a unique American problem. I agree it is intensified here. I also think it is quite possible that corporate power can sort of “win out” as the economic classes clash for economic and political survival. The problem is not just American corporate power-though. It is multi-national corporate power that is the full threat. In that context most every industrialized nation has considerable involvement and interest in expanding their banks and international bargaining power through these non-national entities. It is true that there are countries that have a sterner attitude towards such an influence. Yet, they are influences in these countries and their economies are still connected to American corps—especially banking corporations. If the banks, of which 6 control 65-68% of our GDP, go under-this will create a ripple effect around every heavily investing country in the world. So merely leaving the US is hardly going to allow any of us to escape the problem.
Also, if we can identify problems in voting procedures, know how our Federal debt works, and have access to a robust history and data about how the middle class has fared over the past 25 years-it would seem to me that identifying the issues are hardly the problem. It is convincing those in the electorate to support policies that take our knowledge on these issues and force our legislators to act on our will! The history is clear, however. The battle between the upper class and the other two classes isn’t a current day problem. It is an issue that has marked our very history. In one sense, it is why we fought an entire Civil War. Over 600,000 died in that war-I don’t think we’re there yet. It is important to keep our current struggles in the general context of our overall historical struggles. While we face enormous challenges for sure, we have an enormous base of progressive elements in this country that is quite unlike it ever was. It may come to naught-but it may not. I simply choose to fight for the cause in the belief that it won’t.
You wrote,
“RE: the Bush elections; Kerry did wimp out on election night, and chose to move on, stating publicly that he felt he could be more effective as a senator than as President. That's beside the point. After the Kerry election an endless litany of electoral malfeasance in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere was investigated; lost votes in NM alone (a swing state) could have put Kerry into the Presidency if they'd been recounted and recovered. As I live in NM, I'll give that example. It was proven in federal court that poor ethnic communities in NM (Hispanic and Native American)across the board had been issued faulty voting machines, many of which did not register any vote for President. There was a lawsuit against the state of NM (Lopategui vs. Vigil-Giron), which by way of settlement required NM to use ballots marked by hand in all future federal elections. Furthermore, it's well-known now that African-American voters were prevented from voting in Florida and Ohio. The enormous scale of injustice that has been perpetrated and documented can't and shouldn't be dismissed with glib claims of conspiracy theories. This would only compound the crimes that have been committed. “
Actually Kerry conceded and on November 3, 2004 he delivered his concession speech. Believing he had lost the election he simply decided to move on. You are correct that there were a number of election irregularities in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere. My point wasn’t that there are no voting issues. My point was that the case that there’s some sort of cabal or organized front controlling the elections in this country is more belief than fact! Let’s use your example as an instance here. The New Mexico case Lopategui vs. Vigil-Giron. Here are the facts of the case: In January 2005, a group of New Mexico voters filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court seeking to halt the continued use of electronic voting machines in elections in the state on the grounds that it violated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote. The lawsuit, which named the New Mexico Secretary of State as a defendant, followed evidence emerging from the 2004 presidential recount in New Mexico that revealed the unreliability of DRE voting systems for the proper counting and recording of votes. The plaintiffs negotiated a temporary settlement and worked with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to propose an overhaul to the state’s voting systems. In February 2006, Governor Richardson introduced legislation to make New Mexico an all optically-scanned paper ballot state, thereby effectively banning the use of DRE voting systems. The New Mexico legislature subsequently adopted the proposed legislation, and election results from November 2006 showed that New Mexico’s under vote rate had dramatically decreased.
Thanx for the discussion,
Eric D.
Gotta go--I'm out of time.
I don't get how that classifies the people being happy, but maybe they use the taxes well. I don't know.
You wrote,
“Just briefly, EricD (or we'll find ourselves writing a book, here
I wholly agree that corporations have been more aggressive here in the last century plus…indeed the rail-car vs. the engine-bought bus system was a clear case—one of many—where corporate power took hold and advanced its agenda. One could argue this has been a progressive case since the Civil War where chartered businesses began to boom. Also, there was the huge legal victory for corporations in the 1886 Supreme Court ruling on the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case. It hasn’t always been that way. In fact, in Europe chartered companies were much stronger. Arguably, they played a key role in the causes of the Revolutionary war…just see the East Indian Company’s role in the pre-Revolutionary period as a definite agitator of the British government on colonial economics. In fact, it is undoubtedly one of the reasons why our country had very strict laws on early corporations for the first 100 plus years. It is also why it requires states to charter such business organizations-obviously.
In my previous post I agreed with you that other countries do take a more firm stance towards corporations than we do. I admit that we are the seeming epicenter for powerful corporate forces in the world. But all of that supports my overall point! It is precisely that our investment markets-and corporate control influences international trade and governs markets around the world. In fact, they are key to the success of those markets. While Europe’s people are governed in certain ways that have little direct contact with the corporate world, their social-political and key markets are almost utterly reliant on corporate activity. There’s far more going on here than what goes into American textbooks or how we travel on our roads. All markets are interconnected. Moreover, most of these markets (which are much of Europe) are largely dependent on the success and influence of ours. If we don’t deal with corporate power here-nowhere is safe! We certainly agree that there’s an issue either way and we must contend with it-regardless!
Thanks for the discussion as always,
Eric D.