Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays

Hi folks.

No one consulted me on this, but it seems that sometime between when I was a little boy and now, the default yuletide greeting changed from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays".

This I believe is quite foolish and tacky. I will now outline several reasons why I think we should retain the greeting "Merry Christmas".

1) Why should people get offended by such a positive greeting? It's not like one is saying "I hope you have a lousy day on December 25th". People really need to lighten up. I wouldn't get offended by someone wishing me a Happy Kwanzaa; rather, I would just be mildly amused.

2) Christmas is a civic holiday which affects almost everyone in North American society. Whether Christmas should or not be a civic holiday is another debatble point, but given that it is, 99% of Americans will have a day off, and in this sense the holiday is equivilent to Labour day or Memorial Day (Victoria Day in Canada). But no one seems to mind if you say "happy Labour Day."

3) These days, almost everyone celebrates Christmas. It's part of mainstream American culture and any majority Euro-American would celebrate this holiday. What about the minorities?
a) African-Americans: They are Christians in very large numbers, and I would posit that Black Americans are very likely to celebrate Christmas, and would much appreciate being wished a Merry Christmas.
b) Hispanic Americans: even more heavily Catholic (Christian) than Blacks, I would say that almost 100% of Hispanic Americans celebrate Christmas
c) Native Americans: not that you often see these people, but these days they have in high numbers converted to Christianity and I would suggest a good 60%, if not more, celebrate Christmas.
d) Asian-Americans: 50 years ago, probably very few of them celebrated Christmas, but the globalisation of Christmas coupled with increased Christian conversion amongst Asians (especially Chinese) would suggest that today, large numbers of Asian-Americans (and even Asian-Asians) DO celebrate Christmas.
e) Jews: Traditionally, Jews never did anything for Christmas, as they have their own holiday this time of year (Hanukkah). However, Jews are a very small portion of the US population (about 6 million out of 300- or 2%), and are concentrated mostly in the NYC area. They are also increasingly secular, having embrased aspects of mainstream American culture- including Christmas. It is likely that fully 50% of Jewish Americans, especially the younger generation, celebrate Christmas to some extent. But either way, would they really be offended?
f) Arab-Americans: Well, first of all, there is a sizeable Christian Arab population that, presumably, celebrates Christmas. In fact, only about 20% of Arab Americans are Muslims; this numbers under a half a million for the ENTIRE country.
g) Athiests: OK, well it's unsure how many they number, and presumably they don't celebrate Christmas. IN practice, however, many athiests can appreciate the hibernal (or commercial) aspects of the holiday, and don't mind keeping a Christmas celebration. But if they don't celebrate Christmas, I would imagine they wouldn't celebrate Chanukkah or Ramadan for much the same reason, and i don't think a "happy holidays" greeting would cover them any better.

So what do we have? Most Americans are of European ancestry and celebrate Christmas. The two largest minorities: African-American and Hispanic, also celebrate Christmas in vast numbers, and would doubtfully object to "Merry Christmas". A third minority, Asian-AMerican, is growing in the numbers who adhere to Christmas traditions, to the point where nowadays almost all of them probably acknowledge Christmas in some way. A fourth and oft-ignored minority, native Americans, has embraced Christianity in large numbers, and therefore presumably Christmas.
THere are only three minority groups that could be problemmatic. There are about half a million Arab-Americans who aren't Christian; 6 million Jews, of which I can assume generously that 4,5 million don't celebrate Christmas; and an unmeasured number of Athiests who don't celebrate any holiday anyway, so wouldn't appreciate any Yuletide Greeting. In short, there are about 5 million out of 300 million people (or approx. 2% of Americans) who might actually be offended by the greeting "Merry Christmas".

4) Why Happy Holdays? So, what other holidays are there? Many people would point out New Years. That's legitimate, excpet that it's a full week AFTER christmas. I mean, who says "happy new years" in early December? I figure you have a full week between Christmas and New years with which to say "happy new years", there is really no need to combine the two holidays into one greeting.
Ramadan? Except that it's a) a month long, b) not always coincident with Christmas/December, c) doesn't seem like a holiday to say "Happy _____". Would you say "Happy Lent?". Let's not forget that Muslims are a very small part of America'S population.
Kwanzaa? Ok.... well ignoring for a moment the fact that it's a rather hookey holiday. Kwanzaa is AFTER Christmas, so I don't feel like the two need to be contradictory. Also, Kwanzaa is a holiday for African Americans who are heavily Christian and presumably celebrate Christmas (as well as Kwanzaa).
Hanukkah? This is perhaps the only case. But this is only some years. Some years it's as early as late november and early december, so there need not be any conflict. After all, you don't have to worry about wishing someone a happy Chanukkah 20 days after the holiday is finished.

Basically, either people celebrate Christmas, celebrate no holidays, or once every few years celebrate Hanukkah. If they celebrate Christmas, obviously, MC is an appopritate greeting. If they celebrate no holidays during this time, HH is no better than MC (they are equally bad). If you celebrate Chanukkah, then either it's well before Xmas and does not require a seperate greeting, or someone will accidently tell you Merry Christmas while your actually celebrating Chaunkkah, but in this situation who would actually truly be offended?


So before this becomes too long-winded, I want to wish my readers a Merry CHristmas.... and if you, like me, are also celebrating Chanukkah, then, Happy Chanukkah. And I don't imagine this applies to many of my readers, but happy kwanzaa, and all the rest.

Or, perhaps, I should just say "season's greetings".

On Soldier Worship

Ok, so there's something that's really really pissed me off for quite some time now. It's present in Canada too, but it's much much worse in the US. I'm talking about this cult of soldier worship.

During the presidential campaigns, the candidates (especially Republicans) say these things like: America is all about the young men and women fighting for your freedom. But it'S not only politicians: football commentators, news anchors, and even normal people driving their gaz guzzling SUVs perpetuate this cult of soldier worship. And it drives me crazy.

Don't get me wrong: I don't harbor ill feelings towards soldiers. And I would never say that I didn't support our soldiers. But I don't think it's necessary to worship, or even thank them. They are not fighting for my freedom- this is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Quite simply, my freedom would be in no way affected in the United States had no soldiers anywhere, particularly Iraq. The only war in recent times that one could even make this argument is WWII- at least then the United States was actually attacked by an identifiable enemy, and faced a continued threat of attack.

You might say, but the US was attacked: 9/11. You're right. So, maybe I can add to this the allied efforts in Afghanistan- it's a minor stretch though because the perpetrators of those attacks weren't affiliated with the Afghan government; they were a rogue group of thugs that is currently disappated, but still present.

That said, the majority of the US troops are currently in Iraq. The Iraq war was not, is not, and hopefully never will be concerned with the freedom of Americans. The US invaded this innocent country on shaky pretences. Even if we accept as beneficial the fact that Sadaam is no longer in power, the idea that this affects average Americans is a total stretch. The notion that Sadaam had any ability to attack the United States is foolish, simply given the technological abilities of the country and its geographical location. Of course, this was 5 years ago, and Iraq is currently in a state of psuedo-civil war, which was incidently caused BY the very American soldiers we're forced to worship. By removing Sadaam from power, the country was placed into a state of anarchy, and the provisional democracy has yet to taken hold in the country. Sadaam was sort of the "glue" that held a very multi-ethnic country together- even if he did so with brutal means.

Alas, it seems futile to debate the relevance of the Iraq war, since these days few people would disagree with me. What I'm debating here is the worship of American soldiers, particularly those in Iraq. So, let me put this into a more organised fashion. Here is why I believe we should neither worship, nor even THANK America's soldiers- in Iraq or anywhere else.

1) No current US military operation is actually related to the freedom of individual Americans- particularly not that in Iraq. A possible argument could be made for Afghanistan; even in the last 100 years, the only other possible instance is WWII.

2) In fact, many of America's soldiers, particularly those in Iraq, are actually RISKING the freedom of Americans. Their invasion and ensuing occupation of the country is a source of hatred to many people; whether justified or not, this hatred indisputably fuels the ideology of fundemantalist terrorists. Ideologically, the terrorists become more powerful and more likely to commit 9/11 like attacks- on US soil. Of course.... I'm not suggesting that we blame US soldiers for this- they are obeying orders. We should blame the people who give the orders.

3) It is not rare to here of rogue soldiers. Abu Grahib is the most publicised example, but how many other cases are there of American soldiers who have raped, murdered, and pillaged? I'm not proposing that this is particularly common, but I don't think it's as rare as the media would have us believe- especially since we DO know about Abu Grahib. What I want to suggest is that Abu Grahib is not an isolated situation. If this is true, these soldiers are actually a symbol of shame and disgrace; one that we, as a country, should collectively and staunchly condemn, rather then praise and laud.

4) I guess people always forget this- but soldiers are employees of the government (ie, the taxpayers) and are doing a job, for which they are duly compensated. They deserve to be thanked no more or less than firefighters, teachers, doctors, construction workers, waiters, plumbers, football allstars, Hollywood actors, and electrical engineers. If you believe that everyone should be "thanked" beyond their compensation, just for doing their job correctly (for which they've already been paid), then go ahead and thank Bob the Soldiers, in addition to Steven Speilberg and Katy Perry. Otherwise, you are perpetuating the cult of soldier worship.

5) This cult becomes an ideological tool for greedy politicians. It is used to distract people from the lunacy of the wars they seek to conduct. It is also used by politicians to create an object of mutual worship, and in so doing forge an articial social bond between them, which helps to perpetuate their own quests for power. In short, this is a brainwashing tool for uneducated individuals to help power-hungry politicians to follow their own self-promoting and self-benefiting agendas.

To summarise: I believe that soldiers are normal people, like you and me. They are susceptible to the physical and psychological risks which accompany military operations. I absolutely believe that they deserve just compensation for their duties; I also believe that they receive just compensation for their duties. Beyond they, I believe they deserve nothing. I will not offer them my worship, nor my thanks. I wish them well; I hope they can see their families soon; I hope their overseas assignment could finish soon; most of all, I hope for their individual mental and physical well-being. Beyond that, I will not thank them anymore than I would thank Zidane. They should be treated as normal people. Those who commit crimes should be judged by a normal court of law. Those who slack off should be appropriately reprimaded. Those who excel should be rewarded and encouraged. I don't care to hear about this achievements during Monday Night Football, or the 6 o'clock local news.

On Feminism

Feminism... what a strange issue to write about, especially considering that I'm a guy. I want to set something straight from the start- I have NO problem with feminists or feminism, except what I outline below. Personally, I support complete gender equality, and in my everyday interactions I see women as very much my equals.... different, by equal. I believe sincerely that any woman can accomplish anything that any man can, and vice versa, with the only exception being chidbirth (unless you're like that one guy who used to be a woman and still got pregnant....).

So what's my problem?

First thing.... a lot of times there's a double standard. Let me clarify. Do a survey of the women you know- see how many of them want to be considered as equals. My (non-feminine) intuition would suggest that almost all women DO want to be treated as equals.... and quite reasonably so. In no way would I ever advocate anything less than complete equality for women, and with women outnumbering men in universities these days, women are certainly aiming high.

Yet these very women.... most of whom are ambitious and want all the same opportunities as men.... often have a double standard, especially when it comes to men. Most women- I would posit somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10- want a man who is a) taller than her, b) willing to make the first move, and c) will pay on (at least) the first date.

Sames reasonable, right? After all, it's always been like this- at least in modern western culture. But why IS this unreasonable in a feminist era?

A) Taller than her = Any girl claiming to be feminist, or wanting to be treated as an equal who insists that her man be taller than her is at best shallow and at worst hypocritical. You might say, but men ARE on average taller than women.... and this is certainly true. But that isn't to say that every man is taller than every woman- obviously this isn't true. And, as opposed to something like level of physical fitness, a man's (or woman's) height is something over which he has little, if any, control. So- we make the assumption that height is UNLIKE weight in that it is pretty much uncontrollable. Women may naturally be attracted to taller men becuase they believe such men are more able to provide them with protection..... fair enough, but that really throws the whole feminist thing out the window, eh?

B) Willing to make the first move = Now, I'm not saying that a man shouldn't be willing to make the first move in the mate-finding process, rather I'm saying that any woman who wants to be treated equally (I'm avoiding the use of the word feminist becuase I think it may have connotations among some ppl), should be willing to take the first movie. Purists would say it's the man's role to do this. Surely it was 100 years ago, but at this time women couldn'T even vote in the US! I think men should make the first move in a patriarchal society, but in a feminist era, this has to go out the window.

C) Pay on the first date = It is my opinion that in almost all walks of life, whoever initiates a certain meeting (let's use the convenient example of a dinner) should pay. This is simple etiquette- the person who asks is putting the asked person on the spot, and the latter may or may not have the means to pay for the dinner; it ought to be the responsibility of the person who initates to cover. I would make an exception to this for friends who go out on a regular occasion.... but with respect to a date, I certainly think that the initator should pay. Of course, it just so happens that usually the initator is a man, and in this case, the man absolutely should pay. But as I said, times are changing, and it is no longer fair for women to force men to make the first move all the time.... and in the case that the woman invites the man, she should pay. Of course, the guy should still offer at least twice to be polite, but she should not let him pay. Otherwise it's a glaring double standard, especially in an era when women typically make as much or more than men (I cite as two examples: my stepmother made more than my dad at the end of their marriage; my mother makes more than my stepfather).


My 2nd problem... the transition has not been made yet. I believe I can categories girls in three rough categories as to where they fall in what I will call "the feminist continuum".

The first category is the traditionalist. Women in this category are old-fashioned, and are willing to have the man in control- he is expected to provide and she is expected to listen. It seems ridiculous, but I think it may be more common than you might think.

On the other extreme is the feminist. This is the woman who believes in complete equality- that a woman can do anything, from becoming president, to playing professional ice hockey, to working in contruction. They also believe that chivalry is dead, and men are not expected, and are infact discouraged from holding the door, etc.

The middle category is where I believe most women fall, and is as I described above: somewhere awkwardly in the middle. Another way to describe it is: having her cake and eating it too.

Now I said my first problem with this feminist revolution is that middle category.... the second problem is the existence of these three categories. The fact is one cannot distinguish these categories on the first impression, and it has become ambigious what the proper role for men is.

Where do I stand? I'd say anywhere but in the middle. If it is my calling to step up and take the lead, then so be it. But, we live in the 21st century and times have changed. I believe that any given woman is as capable at anything as any given man. That includes things of physical strength, and many women have proven that they are capable of being stronger than most men. That includes national leadership, as many women heads of state have done quite well and proven themselves worthy for the position. There is no question in my mind that women are equal. But, not to sound viscious, now that they've gotten their equality, they need to be more responsible for it. Otherwise, they will just be "equal plus", which isn't really equal at all.

What is Life?

Hey folks,

I'm sorry that I haven't posted in a while. There are three reasons for this. The first is that, with the US Election over, there isn't a whole lot of inspiration for new blog entries. The second reason is that school is in high gear, and I simply don't have time to put much thought into my blog (of course, I take off on Sundays, which is why I can update now).

But the real reason is more serious than all that. As some of you may know, I lost my dad about a month ago, and I really couldn't get myself to blog so shortly after his death. That said, in many ways, he has inspired the content for this entry.

Before going on, I will deal with some obvious questions. Yes, it is tragic that I lost my dad, but not altogether surprising. He was 68, and has had Parkinson's for about 11 years, and has been in quite bad health in recent years. Things kinda culminated in October, and his body just gave in, and he passed away exactly a month ago.

Dealing with my father's passing has really got me thinking about life in general. As I think about all the stuff my dad had amassed (much of which will be trashed or donated), and all the things we have to cancel (cable subscription, phone accounts), it just struck me- this stuff is so temporary. You gotta think that the people at the phone companies deal with this all the time... and what about funeral directors? This is a weekly occurence for them.

For me it emphasise the futility of amassing all this stuff- especially if it will just be trashed upon death. So, then, what is the point of life? In my 21-year-old opinion, life is about two things: a) about enjoying ourselves responsibly, and b) about making a difference.

A) Enjoying ourserlves responsibly. What does this mean? First, let me consider the "enjoying" part. Many people do believe in some sort of life after death (although my father did not). I'd be inclined to say that I do. However, there is no concrete evidence of this whatsoever. Either way you spin it, our time on earth is finite. No one really knows what will happen next. Perhaps nothing? perhaps hell? Reincarnation? "Heaven"? I'm not an authority. But what I do know is that our time on earth is numbered. We might as well enjoy the ride. What do I mean by this? I mean don't let anyone or anything stop you from doing what gives you gratification. The fact is, at least in North America, our lives are really a product of our choices. We all have the opportunity to get some form of postsecondary education and we have just an incredible range of choices and opportunities, it's just a matter of priorities, and if you really want something, then you should make it work! I'll give you an example. For me, travelling is a priority. People say, "but I don't have the money to travel". True point.... but, maybe you do? It's simply an issue of prioritisation. The average McGill student pays probably about $100/month more in rent than I do, and probably spends $50/month more on going out / drinking. Put together, that's $1800 per year, which is much more than my planned Reading Week trip to Guatemala. In short, travelling is something that makes me happy, and I'm willing to prioritise things in order for me to travel more!
It just bothers me when people aren't happy. Whenever someone is in a rut, the only thing stopping them from changing is themselves! Our lives are a result of our actions and choices, and so we might as well make the most of it.
So what about "responsibly". By "responsibly" I mean, to a) yourself, b) loved ones, c) other people, and d) the world/environment. So, while I think it's important to satisfy our own needs and desires, this must be done thought to economic and oecological sustainability, and the impact on our health and on other people. To this end, a text like the Bible (and many other religious texts) is valuable. While abiding to scriptures may seem counter-productve to "enjoying life" it really isn't. For instance, the preachings of Jesus are very much relevant to living a responsible life. We should think about the impacts that our actions have on ourselves, our loved ones, other people, and the world. When God puts restrictions on our sexual behaviour, He is really considering the complications sexual activities can cause pre-existing relationships, and perhaps even a newborn child. When God suggests taking the Sabbath, He is encouraging us not to overstress our lives. Etc. Etc.

B) Making a difference. I can enjoy myself all I want, but I would consider my life a failure if I didn't make some sort of difference. Think about it- if all I do during my life is gratify my own pleasures, what happens after I die? I fade into obscurity, and it quickly becomes as if I never lived. It is with the differences we make in someone else's life that our lives can persist, even posthumously. Fortunatley, this difference-making comes in many forms, as simple as the friendships we have. Perhaps we all dream of becoming president, or champions, or pop stars, but it can't happen to all of us- and there certainly are some things over which we have limited control. While we perhaps cannot change the contexts of our lives- some are born giften and some aren't- we can do the most with the cards we are dealt. To this end I invoke a poker analogy. Assuming you don't cheat, you have no control over the cards you're given. But, through skillful play, it is theoretically possible for anyone to win any hand with any set of cards against any other set of cards. So it is in life. I'm not saying that everyone can become millionaires with the right effort, but everyone can "win"- it just a matter of perception. Whatever circumstances you are in, if you life your life in such a way as to touch, impact, and inspire others- than you've already won. It really gratifies me to think that i can make a difference in someone else's life, whether it be by cooking someone dinner, or by giving to charity- it is one little thing that has in some way made someone's life- or at least someone's day- marginally better. The fact that I can have such a positive impact in this world is empowering and rewarding. Little things such as this may not life beyond the day, but done continually, it can have a much farther-reaching impact.

To summarise- I believe life should be about enjoying ourselves responsibly and about making a difference. We should life for the moment, and get the most out of our lives- we should see the world, or whatever else it is that puts a smile on your face. This should be done, of course, with thought and consideration. But perhaps most importantly, we should seek to leave some marked, positive impact on our world. This is my vision of a successful life. You are all, of course, welcome to disagree with it. Surely, I do not seek to tell you how to live your life- after all, everyone knows how best to live their own life. These are just some of my thoughts and I thought I'd share them with you.

Thanks for reading.

Updated Thoughts on US Election: Why a Republican victory would be surprsing

I don't want to make a pre-emptive claim at an Obama victory, but I believe this election will be historic either way. The historic implications of an Obama victory are obvious- the country's first black president. But the historic implications of a McCain victory??

It would be perhaps the biggest and most improbable comback in US Election history- at least in the last 70 so years.

The fact is, at this point, Obama has pretty much every possible structural advantage. The national polls: Obama has had a statistically significant lead for several weeks now. While his lead has fluctuated between 6 and 11 points, it has still been significant. WIth only two weeks left in this election, overcoming this deficit is not an easy task for McCain.

But it's actually the Electoral College that matters. For the sake of comparison, let's start with the 2004 map. It was actually closer than people might think.... if Obama won only every Kerry state, he would have 252 electoral votes (needing 270 to win, 269 to tie). It now seems extremely likely that Obama WILL win every Kerry State. In fact, as far as I know, McCain has actually conceded these states- except perhaps Pennsylvania and MAYBE New Hampshire. I'll talk about those later, but let's assume now, for the sake of discussion, that Obama wins.

It also seems exceedingly likely that Iowa and New Mexico will go for Obama, which pushes Obama to 264. This means that Obama, in effect, only has to win one of the following "red states" now considered as toss ups: Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. ALSO, winning only Nevada would mean a tie, which, given the current structure of the Legislative Branch, would likely be an Obama victory. In other words, McCain would have to win all 8 of these states in order to win the election. Indiana he should win. Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and Florida might very well go for McCain as well. North Carolina is trending Democrat, but I still have a hard time seeing it vote for Obama, so lets give it to McCain anyway. That leaves us with Colorado and Virginia; in both states, polls show a 5-8 pt Obama lead- quite tough for McCain to win.

The only other possibility? Assuming that McCain wins all the states above EXCEPT for Colorado and Virginia.... in this case, he needs to win Pennsylvania- which will be tough given his current double-digit deficit, but apparantly he's going all out there. Winning NH, would give him leeway in Nevada, but this is an unlikely scenario.

In short, structurally speaking, there are only two ways in which McCain can feasibly win: either he wins all of: Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado AND Virginia, OR he wins Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina AND Pennsylvania.

Even if these scenarios seem feasible, Obama has a few more advantages. Firstly, continued wall street volitility only helps Obama. Secondly, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is a pretty big blow to McCain's campaign. Thirdly, what is rarely talked about, Obama's campaign has a lot more money and can simply outcampaign the McCain people. Obama is even hoping to buy primetime airspace the week before the election! McCain, with limited resources, must scramble. He's also forced to campaign in states he earlier thought he would win, while conceding important blue states (eg, Michigan).

Not to say it's impossible for McCain... it just would be a remarkable turnaround. And with only two weeks left, something BIG has gotta happen.

Updated Thoughts on US Elections: Why Republicans are sinking lower, and why this is helping Obama

The following things have been heard at Palin and McCain rallies in the past week: "[Obama is a] terrorist!" "Treason!" "Off with his head" "Kill him!" i"m not making this stuff up. Read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/more-hatred-at-rallies-of_n_133115.html, or you-tube it.

There are a few things that are striking about this. Most obviously, is the pure passion and hatred associated with this election. This goes back to a point I made in my prior entry, namely, how the US is in the midst of a culture war that very well could turn voilent. These comments have pure signs of hatred.... not polite disagreement... HATRED. It may or not be racially motivated, but even if it isn't, this is beyond disturbing. Even if you don't agree with his values of political positions, there is no reason to HATE Barack Obama. Obama, like McCain, is a normal human being, who has served his country. Obama is a loving husband and father. How anyone could say such hateful things about ANYONE is beyond me.

What's even more disturbing is the Republican response to this. At best, they've done nothing. Neither McCain nor Palin have publically condemned this. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they didn't hear these shouts when they happened. It must be loud on stage, and someone like McCain has got to have a bit of difficulty hearing. But that doesn't mean they're unaware that these things were happened, given all the you-tube & CNN time they've received. Many Americans know about it, so surely they should as well. Obama certainly knows about it. Assuming they know about it, then they should PUBLICALLY CONDEMN this behaviour. They should run an ad, similar to the positive one they ran on the last day of the DNC, which shows that McCain respects and honours, but disagrees with Obama. This is a civil election, not an all out war, and it disgusts me. In my eyes, unless McCain publically condemns these horrible outcries, he has lost his honour. Paradoxically, some Republicans are blaming OBAMA for this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx. I'll dismiss that as absolute insanity.

The silver lining in this? Obama's response. Many candidates would be quite shaken by the things being said about him. What does Obama say? He says that he can handle one month of "character assasination", but Americans can't handle 4 years of more negativity. Obama has not blatantly backlashed against McCain. Yes, I'm not going to deny that there has been some negativity in the Obama campaign, but as I said in an earlier entry, nothing of this level. Obama ties McCain to Bush quite often, and he substantiates it with the fact that McCain really hasn't lined out a concrete policy difference from Bush, besides perhaps the minimal issue of "earmark spending". So in this sense, Obama's attack is valid. McCain being out of touch with the economy? Pretty valid when until just recently McCain didn't think the economy was much of an issue, and even now they are trying to turn the page on the economy, despite the fact that in the last week alone, Wall Street has lost about 25% of its wealth. So, I'd say Obama is very justified in this attack. Perhaps the worst attack on McCain is a jab at his honour, and the claim that he's erratic. This too is substantiated with recent events. How can McCain be honourbale when he launches blatantly false ads claiming Obama supports "comprehensive sex eduation for kindergartners" or that Obama "palls around with terrorists". This coming from a man who claimed he would take the "high road". So much for that. Erratic? How about the whole campaign suspension fiasco.... the contempt for Obama at the debates... the not-bringing-up Jeremiah Write, then bringing him up.... &c. &c. &c.

How does OBama respond to all this? He's cool, collected... in a word, presidential. Perhaps he has no "official" "executive" experience, but look at the campaign he's ran! In the face of adversity and viscious character assasination, perhaps worse than he'll ever receive as president, Obama has run a successful and reasonably clean campaign. Obama himself has been consistent and smooth. He clearly has respect for McCain. Even his body language in the debate, compared to McCain. He feels comfortable in his own skin. After all, you don't hear "kill him!" at Democratic rallies.

All of this has only hurt McCain. His polls have gone down drastically; Gallup has him consistently down by double digits on the national poll; CNN's current map shows that Obama needs to win only ONE of seven toss-up states, including states in which he's currently leading, such as Virginia, Nevada, Colorodo, and even Florida! And he only needs ONE of those!

Only one of three things could deliver a McCain victory.... (emphasis the word COULD). Firstly is a clear rout in the final debate. Given the previous debates this is quite unlikely. Obama is out-McCaining McCain in the debates, and I don't see anything more than a draw happening. Secondly is another 9-11 like attack, but with less than 4 weeks left this simply seems unlikely (although its possible that the Republicans would engineer one just to win the election- at this point, i would not put it beneath them). Thirdly, is the race issue. Are people lying to the polls becauuse they are ashamed to admit they would not vote for a black person? I would be surprised and utterly disappointed if this were the case. If nothing major happens in the next 4 weeks, and McCain wins, its quite possible this is the reason. In that case, it would be a national travesty worthy of lament. Not so much a McCain presidency, but the affirmation of the fact that the US has not yet emerged from its racist past. But, given that Obama was able to win the primaries against a very worthy and formidable opponent, I'd like to this this is unlikely.

Even if these things happen, a McCain victory just seems almost inconceivable now. The fact is... and what both candidates realise.... "it's the economy, stupid". Especially right now, and it won't change in less than 4 weeks, the US is in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. McCain is by no means an economic stalwart and does little to inspite people of his expertise and ability to revive the economy. And, whether this is fair or not, his association with the republican party that has been in power for 8 years is hurting him. This is not necessarily true, but Bush and the Republicans are seen as the cause of the current crisis... and the Dems are quite smart for pointing this out. Of course, Obama doesn't strike anyone as the economic specialist either, but ONLY by virtue of his association with the alternate party can he legitimately effect his message of change. Change, when the economy is in a spiral unseen in our lifetimes, is what people want. The fact is, in a volatile time like now, people will vote with their wallot, not based on obscure scandals.

Why I believe the US may be on the brink of collapse

The US has seen its share of hard times. I think of the Civil War, when the country was torn apart at the seems. I think of the Stock Market Crash and the ensuing great depression, when unemployement was at 25% and many Americans lost their savings. I think of WWII and the constant threat of attack on US Soil. And I think of the Vietnam war- an internationally unpopular war which drained American military and financial resources.

My friends, regardless of who wins the November election (and you all know my biases), the US is showing ALL of these signs, and as far as I know, this is unprecedented.

Like in the years prior to the civil war, the US is undergoing a regionalistic culture war. In 2004, we all saw the Red State- Blue State map, and had a few laughs over it, but it has only gotten worse. Not since the Civil war has this country been so culturally polarised, to the point where there appears to be little room for compromise. We have people on the left who say they will move to Canada if the Republicans win, and people on the right who find the concept of supporting a liberal to be heretic. This is unsustainable. The closest in history we have ever come to this is in the 1850s, when people in two different parts of the country had fundamental differences as to the ideology and the future of the United States. And taht culminated in the bloodiest war in the country's history. Now, I don't believe the US is on the brink of physical civil war, but it is looking more and more like there may be a complete cultural meltdown.

Secondly, Wall Street is crumpling in a way we have rarely seen since the 20s and 30s. In fact, most experts would agree that we are in the worst econominc crisis since then. Despite the passing of a 700$ Billion "bailout", the markets are down massively today. Many people consider a depression "likely".

Thirdly, we face the constant (perceived) threat of attack on US Soil. Only twice since the early 20th century has the US been attacked in a major way: in 1941, and in 2001. After both cases, the US entered a war, and continued to face the possible threat of an attack. To this day, the individiausl who perpetrated the 2001 attacks are still present, and the threat of terrorist action still exists.

Fourthly, the US continues to be involved in a war which is tapping away militaristic and financail resources- a war which has (or had originally) little or no relevance to any real threat to the US.

Basically, if we consider these four things, the US is, right now, reliving 4 of its worst crises... simultaneously. This gives me reason to be scared.

The only thing I can conclude? I don't even know why Obama and McCain want to be president anymore. Whoever wins the election will inherit a giant mess, from which we may not emerge-or at the very least, we will surely not emerge unscathed.

Republicans = Desperate?????

I never thought it would get this bad.

It started in late July with the "Paris Hilton" commerical, which branded Barack Obama as a mere "celebrity". That was pretty low, but the Democrats could laught it off.

Then, at the RNC in early September, Sarah Palin took a jab at Obama's experience as a community organiser, applying firstly that this is the totality of this experience, and secondly that community organisers lack "actual responsibilities". This remark in itself was offensive, but I think is more reflective of Palin's ignorance than anything. It's clear that she doesn't appreciate inner city poverty which is actualy one of the biggest domestic problems in the US. So that she made such an offensive remark- I could dismiss it as ignorance on her part.

Then, in mid-September, the Repubicans launched a pair of ads that I posted in my last entry- one of which called Obama sexist, and the other one claiming he supported sex education for kindergartners. I think at this point it was clear that the Republicans were becoming desperate. I would call these ads "disgusting" and "inexcusable".

But maybe it was just a gaffe? Truly John McCain, as much honour as he seems to have, couldn't genuinely approve of these ads? Maybe the advertising campaign manager was acting out of line, and the campaign fired him?

But, it's not that simple. Just within the pat few days, Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of fraternising with terrorists. Buzz-word: terrorist. In effect, she called Obama a terrorist. In present-day American society, that is about the worst, most offensive thing you could call someone. She might as well have called Obama a (n-word). See the story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653132.stm.

My question is this: why is this accepted? This is absolutely innapropriate campaigning. Yes, the Democrats have commited their share of negative campaigning, but none of this type. I have not heard the Obama people call McCain sexist, or in fact anything short of a hero. And certainly, Obama/Biden themselves speak with McCain (and Palin) with great respect; admittedly, they may make untrue statements about their policies, but I have not seen an outright attack on their personality (There are two exceptions. One ad attacked McCain for having 7 houses. I believe this is valid, however, because it demonstrates that he is out of touch with the economic suffering of the American people- he doesn't even know how many houses he has. The second is an attack on McCain's honour, but this ad was aired ONLY in response to the sexist/sex-ed duo).

But Sarah Palin called Obama a terrorist!!!! There is absolutely no basis for this claim, and it is, in my opinion, utterly utterly offensive. There should be a public outry- by everyone. The Obama campaign should rip this to shreds- they should say that this type of campaigning is simply unacceptable and they should demand an apology from Sarah Palin. All they say is that it was "offensive" and "unsurprising": http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/palin.obama.terrorist.claim/index.html. Not that this isn't true, but, as I just said, this is UNACCEPTABLE, and the Democrats SHOULD NOT ACCEPT IT.

Further, I think that Republicans should condemn this. I'd like to think that Republicans are decent, compassionate human beings. But this is an outright lie. What are the facts? Some guy was part of a radical group in the 60s that plotted to bomb the Pentagon, in protest of the US's role in Vietnam. Obama served on the same charity board as this man in the 90s. Obama has publically condemned the acts, does not maintain a strong relationship with him, and most of all, he was eight years old during the man's "terrorist" actions. It is an untrue stretch to say that Obama is a terrorist. Republicans, who pride themselves as "compassionate conservatives" are acting like anything but. I'd like to see how any Republican could justify this.

I really hope that mainstream Americans aren't dumb enough to be swayed by this. Please: anyone who thinks that Republican campaigning has been anything but disgusting and dishonest, please comment on this blog, and justify your position. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is in ANY WAY qualified to serve as presidetn, please commet on this blog and justify your position. I really want to hear what you have to say, becuase i simply cannot understand how ANYONE could genuinely believe these things.

Thoughts on US Election - 27 September '08

For the first time, it appears to me that Obama is poised to win this thing. Now- I may eat my words in a month's time, but the way the polls are going, things aren't looking good for the McCain people. I would make the statement that if the election were held today, Obama would win. Further, barring three scenarios of variable likelihood, Obama should win the November election. What are the three scenarios: 1) if another 9-11 like attack happens between now and the election, McCain should win; this is, hopefully, unliklely; 2) if McCain routs Obama in the two remaining debates; this is also unlikely considering his mundane performance in last night's debate, which was on his strongest subject; 3) if race is more of a factor than it appears to be; this is something we simply cannot predict, but, in my opinion, it seems unlikely.

The most remarkeable thing about Obama's lead is that he hasn't really done anything to earn it. In fact, McCain seems to be working quite hard to give this election to Obama.

Follow me here. Empirically speaking, in January '08 it seemed like this election would go for the Democrats no matter what happened- what with Bush sporting a approval rating less than 30%. The primary season could not have gone better for the Repubs; Clinton and Obama fought to the bitter death, while McCain, the most moderate candidate, won handily. McCain is most certainly the best candidate for the Republicans due to his appeal to moderate independents. By the summer, this election was oh-so-close, even perhaps favourable for McCain.

Today it's still close, but increasingly favourable for Obama. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama camp, except perhaps his charisma. What does it have to do with? The McCain campaign is destroying itself. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the brilliant Karl Rove working for them. This election, which could be McCain's to lose, is now Obama's to lose.

Here are four huge mistakes made by the McCain camp:
1) Really sleezy ads. It started in early August with the "celebrity" ad, which invoked Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. What is Paris Hilton doing in a presidential ad????? What does she have to do with anything?????? Did the McCain people go insane????
Ok. Maybe give them a mulligan for that one. Then they aired this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHx2P3Yixyk. This was a pretty low attempt to use Hiliary Clinton to their advantage.
Or there was this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_PYj7zZAs, baselessly attempting to call Obama sexist.
I think this one tops them all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoFVoPCMfg. I don't think I need to comment on why this ad is ridiculous, insulting, and disrespectful.
This one is so ridiculous it's just funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPAdN6XQG0.

These ads clearly go away from the issues, and call into question McCain's honour. I have enough respect for McCain to believe he didn't personally approve of all these ads. I also think the American electorate is intelligent enough to not buy into these ridiculous ads.

Oh, and I must acknowledge that Obama has aired some negative ads as well. Such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k. The key difference in my opinion is that negative ads from the Obama people either stick strictly to the issues (and don't make baseless character judgements) or, as in this one are directly and justifiably respondind to the ads which I mentioned above.

2. Sarah Palin

At first, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin seemed brilliant. She's an "outsider", a "social conservative", and a "hockey mom from Alaska" who can relate to the average Joe... or Joan. And, after all, she's a women.... and Clinton voters like that, right?

Even I thought it was a brilliant pick. Until, of course, I heard her speak. Yes, she gave a good speech at the RNC.... rather, she gave a well-delivered speech, albeit one full of lies and offensive remarks (I still can't get over the community organiser business....).

But then she had interviews with the media, such as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6KviFGzng&feature=related. She doesn't know what the "Bush doctrine" is, she has only had a passport for a year, and she seems to believe she has foreign policy qualifications based on Alaska's proximity to Russia.

McCain's strongest argument against Obama was his inexperience. Yet he chose as his running mate someone with almost a complete lack of experience. Granted, she's running for VP and not president, but a VP still needs to be qualified and ready; after all, she would be a "heartbeat away from the presidency", which is definitely a concern given McCain's age and health.

Not only that.... but she has so much baggage of her own. How about "troopergate"- a scandal for which she's being investigated by the court of Alaska. Then there's the book banning issue; the bridge to nowhere; her pregnant 17 yr old daughter. As if this isn't enough, every time she speaks she seems to turn off more and more people.

The McCain people seemed to believe that she would draw Clinton voters. Yet based on the women with whom I've talked, this is far from true. In fact, I've heard some women say that they decidedly dislike Palin because if she ever became president, she would be so bad that it would ruin it for any other women. To top it off, they're trying to play the sexist card.... something which even top Republicans like Huckabee finds ridiculous.

3. Agreeing with "Bushenomics"

Quite simply, this is why Obama is winning right now. Bush subscribes to X economic theory, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. X economic theory has been practiced since 2000. After 8 years, the economy is in dire straights and people are suffering. McCain still believes in X econonmic theory. Obama supports Y economic theory. Y is different than X, and since people are not happy with the current economy, they want to support Y. McCain should present a radically different economic policy if he wants to win, but that would mean breaking with party lines.

It's important to note that I am not saying that our current economic crisis is BECAUSE of X economic theory. That's something that I do not profess to know; but most Americans will probably see it this way, seeing how things were so good under Democrat Bill Clinton. I personally support Y simply because it benefits me and my family more- as a member of the middle class family.


My Thoughts on the Debate

Personally, I don't think either candidate won the debate. I thought both candidates appeared poised and articulate. I got the impression that both candidates were equally qualified to serve. Most pundits say that Obama won the economic part, but I'm not so sure that's true. Both candidates dodged the question about the bailout, and how their spending would change. Most pundits say McCain won the foreign policy part, but I don't think that's true either. They both showed they're knowledgeable. McCain perhaps is a bit stuck in a 20th century mindset, and Obama is perhaps in a 22nd century mindest. (My personal bias is with Obama's mindset).

I said that I thought the debate was a draw. This is true if you consider the debate in itself. Considered in larger context, it's a victory for Obama. Why?
1) McCain is currently the underdog, and he needed a change in momentum. He didn't get it here.
2) In Obama's perceived weak areas, he was able to stand up to McCain. I said that both candidates appeared equally ready to serve, and this is what most people think following the polls. Empirically, this is a draw, but in reality it's an Obama victory. Before the debate, no one would argue that McCain is qualified in ready, but there were still doubts about Obama. Thus, the only thing that has changed is the doubts about Obama. Obama did a great job in appearing presidential, articulate, and knowledgeable.


Those are my thoughts and observations. Politics aside, I think this election has been supremely interesting and entertaining, albeit little more than a political circus. Whoever wins will inherit a total mess of a country, and will probably be quite unpopular in the first year. But only time will tell these things.

Updates Thoughts on US Election (Part 3)

SO, the RNC is over and the race is on. And so we get an amazing look at a truly compelling and historical race.

1) I must say that McCain gave quite a good speech. If I had to grade him, I would give him probably a B+ (of course, Obama would still get an A). Yes, McCain is not quite the orator that Obama is. And his speech was largely devoid of specific policy issues. But, his speech made me like him more than I had. Unlike all the other speakers at the RNC, he did not spend much time attacking Obama. Instead, he took "the high road", and was mainly seeking to put partisan politics behind you. If someone ONLY watched his speech (and not the rest of the RNC), I could see why they might want to back McCain. And is it really fair to judge McCain by his backers? After all, some of the Dems key speakers could be equally as off-putting to right of centre moderates.

That said, I still had some grave concerns with his speech. First and foremost, as i,ve already said, is his lack of specific policies. It always seems that Repubs criticise the Democrats for their lack of specifics. But if you listen to McCain's speech, he just kept talking about stimulating the economy and reaching accross party lines, without really getting into specifics. Obamam on the other hand, is actually quite concrete in his speeches (at least int he more recent ones), and anyone who says otherwise hasn't actually listened to them.

The other thing is that he keeps talkin about his bloody record in Vietnam. Great. Who cares? It's like that's all they have going for them.

2) The republicans seeem to want to make this an election about character, and not about issues. Thats why, if you notice, the Republicans don't really talk much about concrete issues- half of their campaign has been how McCain is a Vietnam war hero, and the other half is how Obama is an inexperienced rat's ass. They are also trying to push the "change" idea. But, seriously.... how could McCain possibly be a greater agent for change than Obama? After all, McCain has had over 2 decades in Washington without much of a history of change.... so why is he waiting for now? The Republican argument once again falls to pieces.

3) The democrats continue to play it clean. Is this a mistake? Now don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of mudslinging. But the Republicans are never going to stop- and the sad news is that it works for them. It seems that the democrats give themselves a HUGE handicap in always playing it clean. Of course, at this point its simply too late to start playing dirty, and the dems would hurt themselves in doing so, simply because the republicans would just run ads about how they said they would "take the high road" and then renig on it. Such is the Republican way.

4) This was really evident in the election of 2004, but is just as evident now. The US is undergoing a cultural civil war. Sure, when its not election time, everyone can all get along, right? I don't know. It seems that the difference between Massachussets Liberals and Alabama Conservatives are far too great. While they can get along on non election years, the tension is going to keep returning at least every four years. The unfortunate consequence is this: such a fragmented America is not sustainable. Unless mainstream America can find, as Obama advocated, a middle ground- especially on social issues- America as a nation will have outgrown itself. This is a long topic for another entry, but such cultural fragmentation is one of many issues that will lead, in my view, to the significant decline, perhaps even collapse, of the American empire in our lifetimes!

Updated thoughts on US Election (part 2)

So it's been a few days into the RNC, and I had a few new thoughts I thought I'd share.

1) Bush's role in this convention has been interesting. He gave one 8 minute speech, not in prime time. This speech did little to address issues, and spoke almost nothing of the last 8 years. Instead, Bush went on about McCain's courage, and how, if he could survive the "Hanoi Hilton" (vietnamese POW camp), then he could surely survive "the Angry Left". A part from this speech, I have not noticed any allusion to Bush, or to the last 8 years. I guess it's because Republicans know it's their Achilles heal. I'm just amazed that this hasn't damaged them more than it actually has.

2) I'm sick and tired of all this about soldiers "fighting for our freedom". That is simply not true. Would my freedom be at risk if my country had no soldiers in Iraq? Umm.... no. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Iraq is not currently a threat to the US. This is, and always has been an offensive war. Despite what republicans think, Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qayda... or at least it didn't- until the US invaded the country. If the war ended today, my freedom would not be effected. Sure, the freedom of the Iraqis might be, but I won't believe for a second that soldiers in Iraq are fighting for my freedom. The same goes for vets from Vietnam. Vietnam was an offensive war. The north vietnamese never threatened directly the US.... but that is a different story. Maybe one could argue that the war was preventing a Soviet attack? But, alas, I digress. The point is, despite what the Repubs say, the current soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting for our freedom, and anyone who believes this is simply a fool.

3) Why can't the Republicans talk about anything else BESIDES McCain's experience as a POW? I have a few problems with this. Firstly, there's a lot we don't know about his days in the prison camp. I'm not prepared to make judgements in any direction, although there have been people skepitical of McCain's claims. Of course, we just assume what they tell us is true. Secondly, what does it have to do with ANYTHING? Let's assume that he's telling the truth about his experiences. Ok. Does that qualify him for presidency? Umm... No. That's like saying being a holocaust victim qualifies you for the presidency. Sure, enduring such hardship may have built character. And I write with all due respect to Mr. McCain. But, is this all he has going for him? If it is, it isn't much.
And another thing about his experiences in Vietnam. You notice that the Reps go on and on forever about McCains Vietnam days. And even the dems are respectful of it. They will not deny the service that McCain has given to his country. But what about when John Kerry ran in 2004? He was a vietnam vet just like McCain, and he certainly tried to use that to his advantage, just like McCain. But the Republicans spent so much effort trying to trash his experiences there. Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?

4) I have a few problems with all the Repubs saying that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than Obama and Biden combined, and that she has more foreign policy experience than Obama.
This is their argument. Palin's "executive experience" comes from her years as mayor of the town of Wasila, and her less than 2 years as governor of the state of Alasaka. Whereas Biden and Obama, being senators, never really led anything. Well.... this may be partially true- with a few problems. First of all, being mayor of a small, peripheral town of less than 10k people is not exactly "executive experience" which qualifies you for the oval office, and neither is less than 2 years as governor in one of the country's most peripheral states. Secondly, if you're going to get n Biden and Obama for their lack of executive experience, than you need to talk about McCain too... what exec experience does he have? He's been a senator every bit as Obama and Biden- not a governor.
Then, they say she has foreign policy experience. Why? Because she's "deployed the Alaskan Reserves" and.... get ready.... because Alaska is close to Russia! Give me a flippin' break. Anyone who buys this line of thinking seriously needs to get their heads checked.

5) Palin's speech. I'll hand it to the woman- she gave a very well-delivered speech. I believe she is certainly a smart cookie, and a force to be reckoned with. And, policies aside, I don't altogether dislike the woman. But I did have a problem with some things she said. I've already addressed the soldiers fighting for your freedom bulls**t. Then she's trying to glorify the fact that her son is going to Iraq. The fact that she is glorifying this disgraceful war- or war in general- is disgusting. Then she says that Obama has no answer to the energy crisis. Umm... what about his plans to invest lots of money in alternative energy? Then she says that Obama will raise taxes. What she fails to mention, is that these tax hikes are only for the richest 10% (specifically, people making over $200k per year). Such a detail is conveniently left out of her attack. In fact, he claims to lower taxes. and she says that McCain will simultaneously lower taxes for everyone AND balance the budget. Umm.... would someone like to tell me how this is possible? Unless if he slashes funding for education and healthcare. Anyone with half a brain should buy through this bulls**t.
After all these things, there was one thing that Palin said that boiled my blood... that made me want to throw items at my TV set, and that made me lose almost all respect I had for her. She was answering attacks that she lacks experience, and she was addressing the criticism that being mayor of a small town isn't really impressive. She said that "being mayor of a small town is like being a community organiser- except with actual responsibilities". How rude!!!! For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama passed up a job offer on Wall Street to become a community organiser in inner city Chicago, helping the impoverished underclass deal with everyday issues. This comment by Palin was blatantly disrespectful to Barack Obama, and to impoverished inner city dwellers. Much like OBama may not understand rural small town voters, which he rather accurately describes as "bitterly clinging to religion and guns", Palin clearly does not understand urban populations. Beyond this... how dare she blatantly disrespect Barack Obama. The Democrats do not do that. When have the democrats blatantly disrespected John McCain or Sarah Palin?

I'm well aware that all of my readers probably can't vote, or will vote for Obama. In this sense, I'm preaching to the choir. I just hope and pray that people don't buy this Republican crap. Now, I don't believe Obama is a dream candidate.... nor do I actually expect him to keep all of his promises. But at least he promises the right things. At least he plays cleanly.

Updated thoughts of US Election

Well, I can finally give a decent update now that both parties are set with their candidates. I just thought I would share a few thoughts.

1) I continue support Barack Obama, as I feel, for several reasons, he is the best choice in this election.

2) I can't seem to understand why the polls are so close. This should be in the bag for Obama. The Republican party should be in shambles after a disasterous 8 years with an extremely unpopular president, and a candidate not known for his conservative values (cornerstone of the Republican Party). It's a Catch-22 with the Republican Party. Half of the Republicans still like Bush; half hate him. Yet both halves seem to rally behind McCain; inexplicably, McCain simultaneously seems to be distancing himself from Bush AND tying himself to him. It'll be very interesting to see the roles of Bush and Cheny at the RNC next week. But I still don't get why this is such a close election.

3) At first I was disappointed by Obama's selection of Biden. After all the media hype, it seemed the poliically correct choice would have been Hilary Clinton, given all the votes she won in the primary. Biden was at that time a relative no name- just an obscure John Doe who, in my thoughts, would do little for Obama's campaign. Now, I feel totally different. Biden is a great compliment to Obama. He's decades of experience balance Obama's relative lack of experience greatly, while he stands out as dinstinguished from other members of Senate. He is one of the ppoorest Senators who still puts his family first. He just seems like a very cool guy.

4) I can't figure out why evangelical voters support McCain so much. Ok, maybe I can understand in 2004 why they would support Bush, in their twisted political mindset. But, McCain is not a roll model of morality. He's crude; he's divorced, and remarried a young, rich woman. Obama has a model family.

5) The Democrats engineered a brilliant convention. Every minute of it. Michelle Obama's speech on Monday painted a very personaable picture of Barack. Hiliary and Bill Clinton's speeches on Tuesday and Wednesday resoundingly supported Obama. But, Thursday topped them all. Obama opened up Mile High Stadium to whomever wanted to go and gave a brilliant speech. One of the most striking parts of his speech was when he attempted to tackle social issues as few democrats tend to do. What he did was really smart... he attempted to find middle ground in a lot of polarising social issues. On abortion, instead of pro-choice/pro-life, we should reduce unwanted pregnancies. On gay marriage, we should agree to work for the rights of gay ppl to visit loved ones in the hospital. Obama tackled every single issue, did it with finesse and flair. Millions of people watched this spectacle, and I think Obama did a great job of putting the fire back into his campaign.

6) John McCain showed a bit of class on Thursday. He chose not to announce his running mate beacuse it was "barack's special night". He even ran an ad in which he congratulated Obama. All he said was "job well done". It was a classy thing to do, and very smart for his campaign.

7) John McCain has chosen his running mate. It is a woman named Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. This is a very interesting and bold selection. From one point of view, it was a very good selection. She is different, and has the repuation of a reformer, which works well with McCain's "maverick" image. She is social conservative, which works well for evangelical voters. And, she's a woman, which works well for embittered "hilary democrats". But, overall, I think it's a foolish and hypocritical choice. Firstly, I get the impression that McCain is trying to take the historical aspect away from Obama's campign, by getting a woman. Given the fact that she's an obscure governor from Alasaka, if she weren't a woman, she probably wouldn't have been chosen. It seems to me to be a desperate attempt to grab Hilliary-McCain voters. Most importantly is the issue of experience. The biggest criticism of Obama by the McCain people is that Obama is young and inexperienced. Well, what about Palin? She is younger than Obama and has less relevant experience. She has been the governor only two years, of an obscure and politically unimportant state (Alaska). McCain, who is 72 and in poor health, clearly did not choose someone who is the most qualified to step in as president. Obama chose someone who is ready to be president. McCain didn't. This is especially an issue because McCain is relatively more likely to be unable to serve, AND because McCain has made such an issue of Obama's experience.

We'll have to see what happens at the RNC.

On change

So this morning at church, something was said that really struck a chord with me- and it wasn't by the pastor. A woman gave a "monologue" (hard to explain- my church is bizarre), and she talked about how we can all change the world. I know it's cliché, but as she was talking, I realised- you know she's right.

Now, she was referring more to a Christian context, but this can be considered more generally. The fact is- each and everyone one of us has a substantial amount of power to change the world- more than we probably appreciate. Let's consider the many ways in which we can have a direct impact on the larger world.

1) Our power as voters.

Anyone who is a citizen of a democratic country (which, admittedly, does not include everyone, but likely includes all of my readers) can play a direct role in the government of that country by voting. Sure, you might say, "how much does my vote REALLY count?". Additionally, you might question the legitimacy and honesty of the vote counting process (e.g., US in 2000). The reality is the real power comes in large groups, call them voting blocks- but groups are made up of individuals.

Even if our direct influene in national-level politics is limited, we have much greater influence on the more local scale. The town from which I hail has about 10 000. Let's assume that 7 500 are eligibe to vote. Of which 2 500 make the effort to vote in local elections (since most people really don't care). Well, 1 vote out of 2500 is a lot more powerful than 1 vote out of 20 million. A margin of victory of 10% (and it is often much less than this) is only 250 votes! So- each vote really counts.

2) Our power as consumers

This one is huge. Everything we buy- or don't buy- exerts a great amount of influence. This varies depending on what product is being purchased. Let'S take an ear of corn as the first example. Your decision to purchase an ear of corn has the following implications. Firstly, and most obviously, it effects your own life since you are likely to consume that ear of corn in the short term. Secondly, if you buy it from the grocery store, it helps fund this grocery store. This, in turn, has implications for the managers of the store, in addition to the employees, possibly family members of employees and managers, and even people seeking a job at the grocery store (the more business the store does, the more people they can hire, and the more they can pay them). It effects companies which sell their items at the grocery store since your desire to purchase that ear of corn exposes you to a myriad of other products, which you may likely buy. Thirdly, (or secondly if you buy it from a market/directly from a farm), it affects the farmer growing the corn.

Yes, perhaps this is a bit of a stretch- after all, does one ear of corn, costing about 30 cents, make a real difference? What about the 100 ears of corn you and your family may consume throughout the summer? What about the 100 kg of meat you may consume during the year? What about the 15000$ car you just bought- and the gas required to run it- and the insurance you need to purchase. These things have extraordinary impacts on the economy- and these are all results of the actions of a single individual.

3) Our power is tax payers

This one doesn't need too much explaining- and it might not refer to those of us who are currently impoverished students. But people who have a steady salary will pay taxes on it- and these taxes are essential to the budget of your government. So, in this sense, the government depends on YOU for its very existence.

4) Our power over our environment

Every single action has an impact on our environment. By individual life choices, we can help make our world greener- or more polluted. You may think we have little power to revolutionise the world. And perhaps this is partially right. However, in this respect, we do have extraordinary power to improve the state of our environment. I have written about this substantially. One person's decision to eat 150g of meat or less (instead of the average 350 g), has far-reaching implications. This saves over 50kg of meat per year! Think of the impact on the "meat farms" (euphemism), and the butcher shops. That's just if one person kept consumption to 150 g / day. The amount almost doubles if they chose to go vegetarian. And what if 2 or 3 peopel do this? 3 million? Or what if the same person chooses not to drive, or chooses to drive a hybrid vehicle? Or decreasing your electricity consumption? Or refusing to use disposable dishes? There is SO much that each of us could do as individuals that if we only do half of what we could the impact would be enormous.

5) The power of relationships

This may also sound cliché, but every single relationship we have changes the world. The impact can range from getting married, having children, and influencing the world directly through your children. After all, you never know whether or not you will give birth to a great person. But even on more platonic relationships. We may underestimate the impact these have. It's like a chain reaction. I think of my good friends. Individuals who have invested some of their time and engery in caring about me, and in spending time with me. I think of them and how they've influenced me to become the person I am right now. This isn't to say that I seek to become a clone of my friends. Instead, of my best friends, I might say that there is a little bit of each of them in me. Any subsequent friendships I may make will therefore involve the original influence of my good friends.

We may undervalue the power of friendships. I've heard stories of people on the brink of suicide not going through with it because someone reached it. Or people who were otherwise underacheivers were motivated to succeed by none other than good friends. I know that if it weren't for some very good friends of my own, I would never have gone to Mae Sot, and if I had never gone to Mae Sot, I would not be who I am right now.

This may seem convoluted. That is because it is convuluted. What's important to grasp is that we all have extraordinary power to change the worlds just based in our interaction with individuals. This is most amazing thing for me. I often think of myself as living in a bit of a bubble. I don't realise the impact I may have on other people. I wish and long to influence other people, but since people rarely acknowledge any specific actions, I am often led to believe that my life has little impact. That said, to me, I can't think of a single thing that makes me happier than having the power to make someone else's life in some way better. It's an amazing thing really.

6) The power of ambition.

There is one last way we can change the world- directly. I wrote an entry some time ago on ambition. http://rliamo144.blogspot.com/2008/05/on-ambition-15-january-2007.html Many of us have grandiose and pie in the sky dreams. Granted, most of us will never realise these dreams. For those of us who don,t realise these dreams, these dreams are still important because they guide us in a "beneficial direction". And as I said in that other entry, ambition can (and often does) inspire people around you. But, more importantly for this entry, dreams occasionally are realised. With a lot of ambition, a lot of hard work, and a lot of luck, you or me might become the next great person. Maybe president of the US? Maybe the next Bill Gates? Maybe the next William Shakespeare? Think of how much you can change the world then!


Conclusion:

So what's the main message of this entry? We should appreciate just how much power we have to change the world, in almost every decision we make. As voters, consumers, tax payers, friends, neighbours, and dreamers. We change the world in many direct or indirect ways. Let's all appreciate this great power..... and use it responsibly!!!

What does it mean to be responsible? This could be argued, but this is my opinion. First of all, let's aim for a green earth and a sustainable society. Secondly, let's aim for a tolerant, benign, and effective government. Let's aim for coroporate responsibility and improved quality of consumer goods. Let's aim for future generations (our chlidren) to be responsible and contributing members of our world. Let's aim to see the best in everyone and to inspire them. Let's aim to do our share to improve the lives of our brothers/neighbours/fellow human beings. Let's aim to innovate and revolutionise our world.

There's no excuses. We all have control over ourselves and our actions. Use your power to its fullest!

On meat-eating

Back in December, I wrote what I consider to be a pretty good entry on vegetarianism: http://rliamo144.blogspot.com/2008/05/vegetarians-vegans-and-carnivores.html. In it, I wrote that this is hardly the most important issue. I should revise this statement a little bit: it is an incredibly important issue. What can be more important than what we put into our body. Food has a tremendous impact in our lives, so I think we should think quite a lot about it. In this entry, I'm going to write some new ideas about the issue of meat eating. Although this article will provide different insights, my argument will be the same: I believe the ideal diet pattern is one which involves a moderate consumption of healthy meats.

Part I: Reasons not to eat meat

1) Eating meat is immoral?

Many people believe that eating the flesh of dead animals is immoral. I don't believe this, and this issue does not really play a role in my analysis. I think there is nothing wrong with eating the flesh of another dead organism- humans have been doing it for thousands of years, and almost all animals do it. I don't believe animals have "souls" despite our constant efforts to personify some of them.

2) Animals are currently bred inhumanely?

I won't suggest that I'm a fan of current practices of meat production, but it isn't so much because I sympathise with the "plight" of the animals. I'm sorry to say that I really don't. I'm much more concerned about the millions of humans that still live in deep hunger, abject poverty, and a state of bondage. What bothers me is the impact on the quality of meat. I believe that man was intended to eat meat- but meat of animals that walked around, and ate normal food. Chickens, cows, and pigs that remain stationary throughout their entire short-lived lives will not yield the same quality meat. More importantly, we are eating whatever they ate. Specifically, we consumer exactly 10% of the energy that they initially consumed. Cows normally eat grass. Can anyone see a nutritional difference between eating a grass-fed cow and a cow fed feces, or whatever they end up eating in these slaughterhouses? Meat today is not natural, nor is it extraordinarily healthy.

3) Eating meat is environmentally and oecologically unsustainable.

I'm not going to write more about this, as I already covered it quite a bit in my last entry.


4) Popular conceptions of daily protein requirements may be greatly skewed.

Do a google search for how much protein we are supposed to be eating per day. Answers range from 1-2 g/ kg body weight, to 2-3 if youre a body builder. More official sites, such as the World Health Organisation, and most governmental health departments, have recommendations closer to 0.8 g / kg.

Let me put this in perspective. Let's consider an average adult man, who weighs 70 k, which is roughly 160 lbs. Going by the bodybuilder recommendation, he should eat over 160 g of protein, being conservative (that's 1 g / lb, or 2.2 g / kg). Mainstream guides would say about 100 g, while the WHO is closer to just 60 g.

What should we believe? Well, if you want to be a body builder, then you should surely eat more protein- the 1g / lb rule might not be inaccurate. However, is bodybuilding particularly healthy or natural? In most instances, I believe it isn't (however much we may admire people who have built up their bodies). Not only is it unnatural, but its horribly unsustainable. Think about how much food it takes to get 160 g of protein PER DAY. Furthermore, it is suggested that too much protein can harm our health.

Considering that lower estimates come from more reputable sources, and that vegetarians rarely suffer from a lack of protein, I'd be inclied to believe that our requirements are closer to 0.8 g / kg of body weight. 60 g of protein per day is more more reasonable than you might think.

5) There are some good non-meat sources of protein.

Most meats contain between 25-30% protein. It is also a "complete" protein. You can't really debate that meat is the best source of protein.

But it's not the only source. Eggs are believed to have the highest quality protein, and each egg is usually 6-7 g of protein. That means 2 eggs in a day is already 13 g of protein. A warning- a lot of people believe that the egg white is the only healthy part of the egg- this couldn't be farther from the truth. Not only does the yolk contain half of the egg's protein content, but also ALL of its bountiful vitamins and minerals- so if you toss the yolk, you are making a BIG mistake, unless you suffer from high cholesterol.

Nuts (eg, cashews, etc) and peanuts are also typically about 25% protein. Surprised? This means that peanuts actually have the same amount of protein per weight as meat. The catch? Nuts are typically about 50% fats (although they are "healthy fats"). So while 100 g of nuts may provide 25 g of protein, it also provides 50g of fats, which is an awful lot.

Beans and lentils are another great source of protein, and other nutrients. Most beans are near 20% protein, and lentils are closer to 25%, which, again, rivals that of meat. They often have more iron than beef. The catch? For people watching their weight, all beans are high in carbs (but super low in fats!). The bigger concern for me is that it's very challenging (but not impossible) to make them taste good.

Most grains are 10-15% protein. Whole wheat _______ is always better than white _________. So, while it is lower than meat, and is an "incomplete protein", grains do provide something towards your protein requirement.

Dairy is also a great source of protein. Cheese is usually around 30% protein, although also 30% fat.


6) Meat is expensive!

One factor that I think is overlooked is the cost of meat. Meat is a luxury, and a student living on a strict budget has to consider this. Simple math reveals how impractical it can be to eat meat. Chicken breast often goes for $16/kg in my grocery store. Beef and pork are typically cheaper- maybe $10/kg, but they are much less healthy than chicken. Beans and lentils typically go for maybe $3/kg, and have the same content of protein. Peanuts are even cheaper and also have the same protein content. If we assume that most grains have half the protein of meats, they still usually cost less than half of the price of meat- certainly compared to chicken. The point in all this: nutritionally, we buy meat for its protein value, which we can get for cheaper in non-meat sources.


Part II: Reasons we shouldn't all rush to become vegetarian

1) Not all proteins are created equal

Earlier, I talked about a lot of different alternative sources of protein. But, with everyone there was some sort of disadvantage. None of them, except for eggs and dairy, are "complete proteins". OF course, meats are no longer the perfect protein source, with all the unhealhty toxins you consume along with the protein.

2) Not just protein- meat has other important nutrients.

Although mostly every essential nutrient can be found in some plant product, or at the very least dairy/eggs. I believe there is one B vitamin which is ONLY found in animal products, and vegans need to take suppliments in other to get it.

3) Eating meat is part of a more flexible lifestyle.

Let me clarify. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Meat-eaters eat vegetables AND meat. In theory, there is nothing that a vegetarian eats that a meat-eater would not eat. This is important in travelling, or when being entertained by someone. A meat eater never has to be worried about awkwardness due to not being able to eat a meal prepared for him. A meat eater doesn't have to make special accomodations in other countries with different dietary patterns. Perhaps most importantly, the meat eater is able to maximise the expereince of gastronomy. There are so many dishes and combinations of different foods that are just delicious. MAny a nation has its own sophisticated culinary tradition, and there are many different meals that are worth trying. The vegetarian is only able to try a fraction of this, whlie the meat eater can try them all. In this sense, the vegetarian is missing out in a huge part of life- experiencing the overwheming variety of food.

4) Meat tastes good.

When all else fails, the simple fact is: meat tastes good. Obviously, not everyone believes this, but enough people do. Meat requires so much less effort than other foods. You can roast a chicken in an oven with nothing more than salt, pepper, and maybe a little butter or olive oil, and it will be very tasty. Can you do the same with lentils? As much as I actually have come to like lentils, you need to work on them for them to be palatable. So while it's important to be responsible for what we put into our bodies, our lives our finite, and food is such a big part of it. We should make every meal pleasurable, and we shouldn'T sacrifice taste- at least not all the time.


Part III: a compromise

In almost all aspects of my life, I like to keep all doors open for as long as possible. It is for this reason that, despite many compelling arguments for a vegetarian lifestyle, that I will probably never give up meat. However, meat-consumption should be responsible. The average American eats closer to 400 g per day, and many other industrialsed nations are close to that. I think our daily intake should be closer to 100-150 g per day (or like 180/ day, 6 days out of 7). This is also confirmed by any official health organisation.

You might ask: does this provide enough protein. Let's go back to our example of the 70 kg man. Assume he eats 150 g of meat per day. At about 25% protein, thats near 40 g of protein in meat. Add in 1 egg (@ 6 g protein), 150 g bread (about 18 g protein), 2 servings dairy (about 16 g protein), and he's already well over his recommendation- and that's NOT a lot of food!

So, my recommendation is not to eat meat, it is to eat less. Your taste buds will still be happy, but your wallet, body, and planet will be even happier!

Trying to understand my feelings towards my country

For a long time, especially after arriving in Canada, I felt completely divorced from my identity as an American. After all, I was just one of many Americans embrassed of my country.

Sometime between first arriving in Canada (in 2005), and today (2008), my feelings have changed somewhat. This is probably in large part due to what I wrote about in my last entry- specifically, my realisation that in many parts of the world, especially outside the West, Americans aren't as hated as we may think. Sure, everyone hates the government, but most intelligent people are able to distinguish the people from the government. Another contributing factor to my acceptance of my own American identity is the realisation that Canada really isn't a much different or better place.

So, I like America now, right? It's not that simple. My feelings are quite complex. The simplest way I could explain how I feel is this: I like Americans, but not America.

What does that mean? Well, firstly, and this should go without saying, but I don't like the current government. In fact, I can't think of an American presidential administration that I can truly regard with pride. As much as people like to laud Clinton, his administration was flawed, and his foreign policy was riddled with much of the arrogance that plagues Mr. Bush and his cronies. The US also has a shameful history. That said, what country is without some "skelatons" in their "closet"? What country has a truly "good" government? The bottom line is that an entire country shouldn't be judged on the basis of its government.

So, if I can separate America from its government, then why do I still "dislike" America? I don't know if "dislike" is the right word. The better way to express this is that I have no desire to live in America. The first reason for this is that, having grown up there, I see the US as uninspiring and unexotic. I guess this could happen to anyone with his mother country. But I see something greatly unendearing, even culturally impoverished, when I look at the North American social landscape. This, again, is something I've written about before. It's possible that the only reason I feel this way is because, as I've said, the US is "unexotic" to me. Or it's possible that North America is simply a culturally impoverished wasteland. Either way, to me it's uninspiring.

The second reason I desire not to live in the US? This is where it gets touchy. Many Americans living in the US (more on the opposite later) irk me. Not all, of course. But I feel trapped when I'm around people who have never left the country, and have no interest in doing so. I feel trapped when these same people feel liek they know whats right for people in countries they know nothing about- and probably haven't even heard of. I feel uncomfortable when people want to create a society based on overly literal if archaic interpretations of a 2000 yr old text, which leads to bigotry and intolerence. Of course, there are many Americans that are not like this. But the reality is, many more are. Even if not all Americans are bible thumping jesus freaks, far too many are frighteningly ignorant, yet set in their ways.

Things look pretty bleak, eh? Not totally. As I've already said, I currently have pretty much no desire to live in the US- at least not in the near future. Yet, I'm no longer ashamed to be American. Why is this? Well, for all the bad things America and its governments have done, there are also many good things. The US is one of the most generous countries on the planet; and it is also home to the most opportunities. It's a world leader in sports, entertainment, and almost every aspect of pop culture. It's a country that pretty much everybody recognises, and its a country that many many people admire.

This point aside, I find it somewhat satisfying when I meet Americans living abroad. I feel like they aren't like the stereotypical Americans I described above. Maybe some of them are- but any American willing to live abroad will inherently be more worldly than the average American. And I guess I feel like there is a strange, inexplicable bond. I know I felt it the most when I met the American missionaries in Mae Sot- pretty much the only Americans I met while I was there. There's no way I can easily explain this without being overly general and politically incorrect.

After reading this entry (if you've made it this far), you're probably left with a feeling of complete confusion. That's exactly what I feel! If I could summarise everything, I would say this: I am proud to be an American expatriate. This means that, while I don't approve of my government, I will continue to vote and participate in my country's democratic system. This means that while I don't find my country an interesting place to live, it can be an interesting place to visit and offers a lot to the open minded tourist. This means that while I have little urge to move back to the US, I will not abandon my American identity. This means that while I don't like many of the ignorant people in my country, I enjoy Americans open-minded enough to discover their world. This means I'm proud to be American, but I would by no means call myself a staunch patriot. I am proud to be an American expatriate.

How are Americans seen abroad

Americans hated abroad?
This is something Canadians like to claim.... after all, they make sure to wear maple leafs when going abroad, lest they be mistaken for Americans. But are Americans really as hated abroad as we are led to believe?

As you might be able to tell from previous entries, I have travelled just a little bit, and being American, I believe I am a fair authority in this. I also have lived in Canada for 3 years, and I can easily pretend to be Canadian (especially when I'm speaking French, and carrying Canadian currency & a Quebecois drivers licence). For the sake of this discussion, I will only consider countries that I've been to in after 2003- firstly, because prior to then I was too young and niave to judge this, and secondly because 2003 was a pivotal year in US-Int'l relations (becuase of the Iraq invasions). I will consider the following countries: Canada, Portugal, Belgium, Singapore, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Morocco. Not a whole lot of countries, but it covers 4 continents, and I think it's a pretty diverse base. (Note: I didn't include certain other countries because I don't feel I was there long enough to make any sort of judgement).

Out of the 8 countries I have listed, the only one where I would say I experienced open hostility for being American is none other than the self-proclaimed politest country in the world: Canada (that Canada is a polite country is another great myth that I could spend an entire entry debunking.... but I won't since many of my readers may be Canadian). Of course, you have to consider a few things. I've lived in Canada for 3 years, and therefore I've encountered many different types of people- inherently increasing the chances that I will encounter ouvert anti-Americanism. I also don't go around advertising myself as American- in any of the places above.

Having lived in Canada for some time now, learning a lot about the country, and being able to speak French allows me to easily pass off as Canadian, especially when I truthfully say things like, "I live in Montreal, Canada", affords me a really interesting perspective. Talking to a lot of Canadians, they say (rightfully so) that non-North Americans can't distinguish between Americans and Canadian. This prompts them, as I've already said, to port maple leafs when abroad, with the belief that Canadians are more respected abroad. I believe that my experiences serve as a counterexample to this proposition. I can say this particularly about Belgium, Morocco, Burma, and Thailand. IN this countries, when asked (as I often was) where I was from, I mixed up my responses: sometimes i was from Canada, sometimes i was from USA, and sometimes (in Burma) I was from "Ingagyo" (Mars). The latter unsurprisingly led to laughter and humorous small talk. As for Canada/US: often, particulalry in Belgium, the difference in response was imperceptible- except this one guy said "now are you actually from Canada, or just an American pretending?". Elsewhere, saying I was from Canada was a conversation stopper- people in non-western nations often know as little about Canada as Americans do, and are left with nothing else to say. Saying I was American almost never got a passive response. People enthusiastically would ask me which city I was from, what I thought about George Bush/ Barack Obama / Oprah/ Michael Jackson / etc.

In all of this, I propose several theories, especially about how Americans are perceived in "third world areas". 1) Through its exportation of pop culture, the USA is known and recognised more than almost any other country- possible rivals being the UK, China, and India (depending of course on the country you're in). Simply put, many things, from Hollywood, to Rock N Roll, are recognised, appreciated, and celebrated. And similarly, the birthplace of these things, the USA, is recognised, appreciated, and celebtrated. It also puts the US on the map more so than many other countries (especially Canada).

2) It's lack of colonial imperialism (compared to the UK and France in particular) means that many third world countries don't have a tense history with the US. French presence in Morocco, or British presence in Burma may remind some peoples of the days of colonialism, whereas with the sole major exception of the Philippines, the US doesn't have this sort of "baggage" with many nations. In fact, the US is itself a former colony of the UK (and, technically, France and Spain).

3) It's reputation of prosperity and "beacons of morality and democracy" may seem as a glimmer of hope for some people in impoverished/ ruthlessly rules nations. Many dream of emigrating to the US in the (perhaps nïave) hope of sharing in the "American dream". Others, like in the unique case of Burma, actually dream of an American invasion to usurp unappreciated rulers. The US, unlike most nations, started as an "experiment in democracy" and tries very hard to maintain this image (with mixed success).

4) Southeast Asia in particular is inundated with tourists that come especially from Europe/Australia- often acting very similarly to the oft-stereotyped "Ugly American". In a somewhat ironic twist, Americans making it to Southeast Asia (and to Africa for that matter), are a) rare, and b) often more adventerous/respectful travelers than others. Let me clarify myself with a specific example. I will use Thailand, because I lived there for about 3 months, and because it is the most touristy country in SEAsia (and hence one of the most touristy countries in the developing world). Most of the Western tourists (to say nothing of the Japanese, Chinese and Arab tourists) were from Europe or Australia/New Zealand, with France being particularly represented. I observed behaviours, especially among the French, that closely ressemble the "Ugly American" stereotype- making no effort to speak Thai, complaining about stupid things in restaurants/stores, walking around shirtless (which is somewhat of a thai faux pas), etc. - just irresponsible travel. American tourists are quite rare in Thailand, which is understandable considering how far away it is. Whereas for European holidaymakers Thailand is a common destination (analogous to our Mexico), it is only for atypical Americans. OFten, but of course not always, an American willing to go to an uncommon place like Thailand is not like the typical American traveller- and thus more open minded and respectful. Thais may recognise this, and thus respect Americans more because of it. Of course, I can't say so for sure, since I'm not Thai.

5) People aren't stupid and can distinguish a government from its people. The Bush government is almost universally loathed. I staunchly believes that this doesn't hold true for the American people. Of course, we may look like total idiots for having elected him twice, but that aside, actions of our president are not normally tied to us. More and more Americans of course are growing weary of Mr. Bush themselves.

All of these things said, there is definitely some truth in the statement that Americans are disliked abroad. I haven't been to every country, nor have I consulted specialists from every country. In Latin America, I'd imagine feelings are particularly mixed and perhaps negative especially in some places like Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela (and often with good reason!). Apart from having an enourmous complex, Canadians aren't normally rude to Americans in general (except in so far that Canadians are by no means the world's friendlist people). While some Western Europeans may have grown weary of Americans, this by no means true of all Western Europeans. Yes, I believe the Anglo-American friendship may not be at its highpoint, and many French people are certainly frustrated with Americans- but French people in particular have good reason to be- disrespectful tourists combined with hostile rhetoric would make for soured relations. What about Eastern Europe? Of course, there are those countries still dreaming of the glory of the USSR- like Belarus and Russia. But, there are also places like Kosovo, and other balkan nations that adore the US. North Africa & the Middle East? Again, I think people's images are greatly distorted. OF course Iraqis may not be crazy about American soldiers. And I'm not sure if there are any Arabs who support the US-led invasion of Iraq. That said, most Arabs are not fundamentalists and do not wish death to Americans. Likewise, most Americans who voluntarily travel to the Arab world recognise this, and treat their Arab counterparts with respect. Many Arab countries hold substantial investments in the US: like Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. What about Sub-Saharan Africa? I have not been here, so I can't speak from experience, but the US has a great history of aid-giving in this region, without any colonial baggage, so from what I understand, Americans are adored here. I know from experience that Americans are often appreciated in many parts of Asia. I know this is true in Israel.

Anyway, without becoming too much more tedious, I would like to suggest a reform to the belief that Americans are hated abroad. I would say this: Americans may encounter (often deserved) mistreatment in some parts of Western Europe (especially France), Latin America, "evil" nations like Belarus, Russia, and North Korea, and some parts of the Arab World.... of course, I don't think it would be quite as bad in all places as we might think- even Iran. In many other places, Americans are beloved more than other Westerners- despite Bush.