Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

this can't be good news for the EU

GOOD! Posted by Barbara Skolaut at March 10, 2005 07:57 PM

The EU in its current form has problems. Many in the EU parliament admit that.

If the politicians and bureaucrats can't pull themselves out of the malaise, the electorates will do it for them.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 10, 2005 08:19 PM

>>EU About To Implode?

>>...this can't be good news for the EU.

Rand, clearly you want the EU to implode, but above and beyond the embarrasing level of ignorance on Europe and the EU, that you once again are displaying; this type of questioning only demonstrate that you're actually clueless, and ought to stick to what you know; and that's writing about what's happening domestically in the US and space policy analysis.

Not unexpectedly, you didn't mention that The Times of course, is owned by that arch-Eurosceptic Rupert Murdoch and is the upmarket of Mr Murdoch's UK press interests.

Now, it's true that failure to ratify the first-ever constitution for the EU - which primarily is a response to the enlargement - would lead to a political crises. However, spats, tensions and divisions are nothing new in the history of the EU; rather it's the norm.

Because of its sheer size, the enlargement from EU-15 to EU-25 raised extra questions for people on both sides about the impact on their lives and jobs. Not surprisingly, worries on one side sometimes mirrored those on the other.

Thus quite a few people in the west worried that their jobs would be threatened, if new EU citizens, willing to work for relatively low wages, moved westwards in large numbers. Or what if firms transferred production to cheaper plants in the new member states? Others were concerned about environmental standards or the possibility of more illegal immigrants entering the EU via the new member states.

On a political level, some asked whether such a big enlargement might slow European integration or dilute current achievements. Others in the new member countries wondered whether they might be surrendering sovereignty to "Brussels" so soon after leaving the Soviet/Russian sphere of influence.

However, there is widespread agreement that the EU today is ill-equipped to function as a 25-member body with its current institutional framework. A truly continental-scale Europe - larger, more complex and diverse with 25 members (and growing) - should have decision-making systems which are not only effective, but also democratic, or stated in another way; as centralised as necessary, as decentralised as possible. It's this point, I guess, that really goes to the heart of the matter - where reasonabe people are disagreeing on the way forward.

The EU has evolved over the years, often it seems, by two steps forward, and one step back. It won't be different this time around. I fully expect that voters, at least in one country, will say no - in a national referendum - to the proposed EU constitution. However, in the same way as the Danes said no to the Mastricht-Treaty in 1992, such a rejection of the constitution won't have a dramatic impact on the long-term development prospects for further integration. In the short term, there will probably be a lot of uncertainty within the EU. As in the past, however, the durability of the EU will make sure that, in the end, most of the difficulties will have been overcome, and a new (and hopefully) better proposal for a "constitution" will be accepted by a majority of Europeans.

Posted by Canute at March 11, 2005 05:44 AM

Thank you for your comments, "Canute." I'll give them all the consideration that they're due.

And what happens when a "majority of Europeans" are Muslim?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2005 05:48 AM

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about your blog when you're commenting about these things. At least that's good in blogs that they're not shy of their attitudes.

Come visit my country, Finland some day, Rand. If you dare for all the prejudice you got from Fox news - hehe, some of their "documentaries" like "Sweden's muslim problem" are circulating as joke video material here. Maybe I should tip them off for a few other "shocking" documentaries for the Americans. (I.e. like we enjoy Michael Moore's stuff on this side of the Atlantic.)

Yeah, EU is a very troubled organization with huge bureaucracy and lots of stupid rules and directives and it's very possible it might break up, although I don't think that constitution rejection would do it (yet). There are very different countries and regions in the EU too, so what you see somewhere might not apply everywhere, but in the general it's designed to function anyway.

Our small country has been a slight net payer in EU, but it still has given our industry very much positive stuff, it has set common coarse limits (directives) for products and generally leveled the unfair-ish competition field (for a crude example, now the newly-joined Estonians have to care more about their worker safety, and they can't cut costs there), removed tax barriers and reduced currency manipulation. It has also been good for nature conservation, being able to stand unified against exploitation. (i.e. threats to move to another country) (Btw practically speaking, I think most of the money in the EU budget is about farming subsidy.)

I see that the EU had to come - it's a natural extension for the states to combine efforts since even ~all companies are already operating internationally. Trading and company operation is so much easier when the rules are common for everyone, and improves prosperity. Finland is such a small market area that there aren't that many products which you don't export.

It has been of great commercial utility - and hopefully will be of even more.

Posted by meiza at March 11, 2005 07:20 AM

...we enjoy Michael Moore's stuff on this side of the Atlantic.

I think that tells me all I need to know.

We enjoy it here, too. We just don't take it seriously--most of us recognize that it's simply entertaining propaganda, polemics, and outright lies. Sadly, I'm not sure that you do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2005 07:33 AM

Going back to that other discussion...

The muslim problem is overblown. Compare the net migration rate into the USA (3.41/1000) vs the EU (1.5/1000). Source: CIA World Factbook.

Some countries have large muslim minorities, like France, but on average it is not a problem. The bill of rights will not permit the enslavement of women. I believe that as muslim women are emancipated their birth rate will decrease just like it decreased for everyone else as women moved into the labour pool.

The EEC was partially modeled on how the Benelux worked, so I am somewhat sceptical the Netherlands will reject the constitution.

From what I understand the so called constitution merely writes down the already existing rules and treaties in a coherent manner with minor fixes to accomodate the larger amount of countries. Council president is now a fixed post instead of being rotated, the bill of rights is now actually written down, etc.

It still does not solve the major inbalance in the current system, which is that people indirectly elected by the executive of the several countries (EU Commission and Council of Ministers) have more power than the directly elected pseudo-legislative (EU Parliament). I say pseudo-legislative because contrary to any normal legislative, parliament exists more to rubber stamp approve things than actually make law.
The system is preverse in this way because none of the country governments wanted to give away power to a separately elected central body. But it ends up increasing overall corruption on the system.
It is just too easy for the not directly elected bodies to ram through directives and the parliament only has one real power to stop it. Which is dissolving the commission.

Posted by Gojira at March 11, 2005 08:03 AM

> generally leveled the unfair-ish competition field (for a crude example, now the newly-joined Estonians have to care more about their worker safety, and they can't cut costs there)

I'll bite.

Why is it unfair for the Estonians to make different decisions than the Finns? Why are the Finns' decisions better than those of the Estonians?

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 11, 2005 08:05 AM

Moore, he's found a way of making money by mocking. Propaganda for people pay to see what they want to see. I'm skeptical of him, and I recognize I don't have much knowledge of the things he is talking about, so it's probably easy to fool me.

Hey, I compared it to Fox news, shouldn't that make it clear? ;) I read the Fox News page every now and then, they have hilarious stances on many questions I do know at least something about.

Posted by meiza at March 11, 2005 08:08 AM

meiza:
>> generally leveled the unfair-ish competition field (for a crude example, now the newly-joined Estonians have to care more about their worker safety, and they can't cut costs there)

Andy Freeman:
>Why is it unfair for the Estonians to make different decisions than the Finns? Why are the Finns' decisions better than those of the Estonians?

Well, it's a very hard question, but I can give some points in the general direction. Do not take too literally.

Since we (the EU) use their products it's ethical that they're manufactured without significant abuse, so that there's at least some bare minimum rules (EU directive, like, say, use a certain breathing filter when working with certain chemicals), although we in our country (Finland) might still have some more strict rules on top of that. We also think it's good for them (the people of a newly-joined country). They might or might not think the opposite, but that was the term for them joining. Also, now some Finnish company can't threaten to move to Estonia because it can cut some corners there (gradient exploitation). Although they of course still move in masses, because the labor is still cheaper there - they're rebuilding their country after communism at a breakneck speed.

The EU are also neighbouring countries and it's good for many reasons to try to improve the laws and standard of living on the poorer parts - if they're very bad, you get crime, prostitution, massive immigration and all other kinds of problems. I know some mentality is not to try to solve the problems at root but just crush them with force, but from my personal point of view, it's easier, cheaper and safer this way.

Posted by meiza at March 11, 2005 08:31 AM

>>And what happens when a "majority of Europeans" are Muslim?

Rand, you seem to be blinded, by what I would characterize as irrational hatred towards Muslims. What you really demonstrate, though , is how an angry middle-aged man is uttering out his prejudices from his pathetic little cocoon of ignorance.

I would assume that you don't really know any Muslims. I, on the other hand, know quite a number of Muslims personally. Wouldn't you also have known - that is, if you'd lived at least part of your life outside of the cocoon - that they're just like you and me, with many of the same aspirations as people in the west, and that they also cherish their children's future.

It's true that the fertility rate in EU countries are on average, below what's needed to sustain the population. But why do the Nordic countries (Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) have fertility rates that now stand significantly above the average for EU and OECD countries? Could this be for the fact that in these countries more attention is being given to the effects of high participation of mothers on wages and careers and a generous 10-month fully paid maternity leave?

Now, let's return to your hilarious question; wouldn't you know that it's easily debunked?

Since Norway is very similar to many EU countries, I 'll use data from Statistics Norway:

http://www.ssb.no/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200102/ssp.pdf
__________________________________________________

Myths and Facts 1:

Myth: The reason that the fertility rate in Norway is high, is that immigrant women have so many children.

Fact: The number of child births by immigrant women are just a small portion of the total number of newborns in Norway

Myths and Facts 2:

Myth: Immigrant women do not produce more children than Norwegian women.

Fact: In total, all immigrant women give on average, birth to one half of one child more than Norwegian women. However, the variations are greater than the similarities, and between the immigrant group with the highest fertility rate and the immigrant group with the lowest fertility rate, there's a difference of about 3.5 children on average.

Myths and Facts 3

Myth: Immigrant women move to Norway to give birth to children.

Fact: The fertility rate increases during the first years after the immigration as a result of marriage and families that are reunited. The fertility rate decreases when one takes into consideration delayed births.

Myths and facts 4:

Myth: Immigrant women do not adjust to Norwegian levels of fertility.

Fact: The fertility rate decreases when the time of residence in Norway increases in all immigrant populations, but some groups adapt faster than others.

Myths and facts 5

Myth: The second generation of immigrant women give birth to as many children as their mothers.

Fact: The fertility rate of the second generation of immigrants, is more similar to that of the native population, than to those who migrated as adults.

__________________________________________________

Now, I'll just repeat this last point:

THE FERTILITY RATE OF THE SECOND GENERATION OF IMMIGRANTS, IS MORE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE NATIVE POPULATION, THAN TO THOSE WHO MIGRATED AS ADULTS

So Rand, even you should be able to realize that in modern society, as time goes by, the social behaviour of immigrants, in most areas of life, tend to approach that of the "native" population.

Posted by Canute at March 11, 2005 08:36 AM

Rand, you seem to be blinded, by what I would characterize as irrational hatred towards Muslims.

Well, I doubt that it would seem that way to most readers of this site. I don't harbor any hatred toward Muslims, irrational or otherwise. For that matter, I can't think of anyone I hate, including Osama bin Laden. That's not a very useful emotion to me.

I am realistic, though (apparently unlike you), about the potential consequences of Europe continuing to allow massive immigration with no requirement for assimilation. And some of your fellow Europeans, particularly in the Netherlands and Germany, are starting to come to that realization as well.

What you really demonstrate, though , is how an angry middle-aged man is uttering out his prejudices from his pathetic little cocoon of ignorance.

And you demonstrate even more a seemingly impermeable cocoon of ignorance about much, not least of all me.

I would assume that you don't really know any Muslims.

That shows the danger of making completely unfounded assumptions, doesn't it?

I in fact know many, and have gone to school and worked with many. I've even dated one. I am from southeastern Michigan, which has the largest concentration of Arabs in the US.

I, on the other hand, know quite a number of Muslims personally.

Well, goody for you. I hope that not everyone in Europe is as ignorant about the US, and Americans, as you seem to be.

[rest of condescending, pig-ignorant nonsense ignored unread]

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2005 08:49 AM

Rand said:
I am realistic, though (apparently unlike you), about the potential consequences of Europe continuing to allow massive immigration with no requirement for assimilation.

Geez, how about reading what I said before:
Compare the net migration rate into the USA (3.41/1000) vs the EU (1.5/1000). Source: CIA World Factbook.

Posted by Gojira at March 11, 2005 09:00 AM

I did read it. Europe is not the US.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2005 09:03 AM

Rand,

theis Constitution is a horrible document,l and it will be very good for the EU if it fails to be adopted.

Posted by Ralf Goergens at March 11, 2005 09:29 AM

Please tell me why it is a horrible document and how not adopting it would improve the present situation. It is basically a salad of all the present rules with minor seasoning.

Posted by Gojira at March 11, 2005 11:07 AM

gojira:

You sneer that Rand has not read your post, b/c you note that the CIA factbook lists US immigration as 3.41/1000, while EU has an immigration rate of 1.5/1000.

But that is an aggregate figure, in which Muslims are not broken out. Considering the porousness of the US southern border, the vast majority of immigrants to the US are Latin American, not Muslim. And given the paucity of Asian immigrating to Europe, compared w/ the US or Australia, I'd venture that most of the 1.5/1000 are Muslims, versus that 3.41 to the US.

Now, there are cultural differences between Latin Americans and native-born American citizens, but I would suspect that those pale between the differences separating Muslims and native-born Europeans.

For example, the incidence of "honor killings" among Latin Americans is rather low. Nor is there a separate legal structure akin to "sharia" in Latin America, run by the Catholic Church.

This is not to suggest that Muslims should be hated nor feared, in either the US nor Europe, but rather goes to the heart of the assimilation issue, and whether said population will integrate well.

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 11, 2005 11:13 AM

Yes, _i've heard_ that in European statistics for example Somalian refugees have much much lower employment rates than Vietnamese (I don't remember the numbers).

That is definitely a problem for the Somalians. Rand has some reason behind his arguments, but just to say that "EU implodes" is silly. And sorry, I don't have a link. I hope you see that this is not racism, but just statistics. I don't know the reasons for the numbers.

I also personally hope that EU could gather some not insignificant peace-forcing troops to go to countries having a civil war, so that so many people wouldnt need to seek refuge.

Posted by meiza at March 11, 2005 12:46 PM

peace-forcing troops

Boy, I hope that's a slip, there, caused by English not being your first language...

Posted by McGehee at March 11, 2005 02:25 PM

> I also personally hope that EU could gather some not insignificant peace-forcing troops to go to countries having a civil war, so that so many people wouldnt need to seek refuge.

That's not going to happen - the Euros don't have the will or the means. They can't even transport what little they have. (Credit where credit is due - the French appear to be quite good, or at least bloody, at suppression as long as someone else takes care of holding territory.)

Maybe this time the Euros will learn what "Peace in our time" actually means.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 11, 2005 05:57 PM

>>Well, I doubt that it would seem that way to
>>most readers of this site. I don't harbor any
>>hatred toward Muslims, irrational or otherwise.

That may be so, but in helping to spread false and inflammatory information, harmful to Muslims who live in the west; you're guilty as charged.

>>rest of condescending, pig-ignorant nonsense ignored unread

...which means you didn't read Myths and Facts 1-5.

>>I hope that not everyone in Europe is as
>>ignorant about the US, and Americans, as you seem to be.

Hmm, you're going tit for tat eh? I say you're ignorant about the world outside the US; you - not trying to prove you're not - say I'm ignorant about the US and "Americans". Well, I don't really mind you saying so, if it makes you feel much better.

Now, am really so ignorant about your homeland, as you seem to believe, or am I, in fact, quite knowledgable about America and Americans?

Well, I could name a few things that may indicate that I'm not totally ignorant of the land of the free; such as a couple of years of studying in Canada (when I travelled extensively throughout North America), that I've been to 27 of your states, read quite a bit of American History, read a number of major American literary works (20+ books), listened to an enormous amount of American Music, and not the least, followed the development of your space program since before the first launch of Columbia.

>>>>I would assume that you don't really know any Muslims.

>>That shows the danger of making completely
>>unfounded assumptions, doesn't it?
>>I in fact know many, and have gone to school
>>and worked with many. I've even dated one. I am
>>from southeastern Michigan, which has the
>>largest concentration of Arabs in the US.

I could ask you if that person that you say you've dated, was a male, but I won't, because that's too cheap a shot.

Have you ever stopped to consider why the vast majority of Muslim women who immigrate to the West usually maintain their identity and strive to pass it on to their children? If you'd known about that fact, you'd also known that Muslim women can't just date any non-Muslim male. Secular, Westernized Muslims do not represent the the 98%-pluss majority (my estimate) of Muslims, and have very little influence in the Muslim world.

Posted by Canute at March 12, 2005 03:09 AM

...in helping to spread false and inflammatory information, harmful to Muslims who live in the west; you're guilty as charged.

Bullshit.

It's the behavior of totalitarian Islamic extremists that will be harmful to Muslims who live in the west--I simply point it out. Fortunately, the moderates are finally starting to wake up to the danger as well.

And your 98% estimate is utter nonsense.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 05:42 AM

>>It's the behavior of totalitarian Islamic
>>extremists that will be harmful to Muslims who live in the west

Hmm, I guess you're meaning: "harmful to Muslims who live in America". Don't necessarily equate America with "The West".

Anyway, this seems to be a belief shared not only by your intolerant religious conservatives, but also by an increasing number of ordinary Americans.

In Europe, on the other hand, a solid majority seems to be able to differentiate between the actions of a surprizingly small number of true terrorists, and the right of oppressed peoples and countries to struggle.

For instance, take the example of the dreary history of America's war and occupation of Iraq, where the current US administration has repeatedly acted on gross misconceptions about whom you're fighting, and have been telling you flat out lies, that the people you're fighting in Iraq, are "freedom hating terrorists" and "insurgents".

Now, the foundation upon which these descriptions are built - that these forces now dominate the resistance, supply its leadership, or provide the bulk of its resources - are profoundly inaccurate. This is most easily seen by consulting - of all sources - the US Central Intelligence Agency, which has recently issued a contrary report. According to the CIA, the Zarqawi faction and his Saddamist allies were "lesser elements" in the resistance, which was increasingly dominated by "newly radicalized Sunni Iraqis, nationalists offended by the occupying force, and others disenchanted by the economic turmoil and destruction caused by the fighting". This most intractable part of the resistance in Iraq is fighting a classical guerrilla war. These "armies" hide by melting into the local population. (Everyone knows this, including, of course, the US military.) To defeat them, an occupying force must have the intelligence to identify guerrillas who can disappear into the civilian world; and it must station troops throughout resistance strongholds in order to pounce upon guerrillas when they emerge from hiding to mount an attack. I would guess, that your military strategists would know about these facts, but such a radical and new strategy can't currently be implemented by the army you've got in Iraq - something still not realized by your incompetent commander in chief.

>>And your 98% estimate is utter nonsense

No, it's not. I'm not saying 98% of the people who live in Muslim countries, but among practicing Muslims. There's no point in saying you're a Muslim if you don't practice the religion. This, of course, is in stark contrast to Europe and America where people may say that they're Christians, even though they might not practice Christianity.

Keep in mind that those people who are so-called "secularized" and "cultural" Muslims, and who reside in Muslim countries, are mostly the children of the elites (the aristocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, teachers and professors), educated in the west, and if in America; payed high tuition fees.

Posted by Canute at March 12, 2005 10:10 AM

Hmm, I guess you're meaning: "harmful to Muslims who live in America". Don't necessarily equate America with "The West".

I don't. It will be harmful to Muslims in Europe as well. The Dutch, and the Germans, are already starting to figure things out.

Democracy, immigration, multiculturalism. Pick any two.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 10:18 AM

> If you'd known about that fact, you'd also known that Muslim women can't just date any non-Muslim male.

And that's no more relevant than the fact that Jewish women aren't supposed to date non-Jewish men.

> a number of major American literary works (20+ books),

And 50 Baywatch episodes.

> listened to an enormous amount of American Music,

Any definition of "American music" wide enough to encompass the majority of American music sweeps up most of the rest of the world's music as well.

But, I've got the feeling that Canute doesn't listen to the most American forms of music.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 12, 2005 10:25 AM

> Well, it's a very hard question, but I can give some points in the general direction. Do not take too literally.

Why should I take that tripe literally?

Old Euros aren't willing to let Estonians compete unless the old Euros have an advantage. Sure, they say "adopt our standards", but the Estonians aren't in the same position as old Euros. It's all about keeping Finns at work at the same wages, and if some Estonians don't get work, well that's just too bad.

It's not a coincidence that Euro concern is usually coincident with Euro economic advantage.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 12, 2005 10:32 AM

>>>>If you'd known about that fact, you'd also
>>>>known that Muslim women can't just date any non-Muslim male.

>>And that's no more relevant than the fact that
>>Jewish women aren't supposed to date non-Jewish men.

See the point above regarding practicing Muslims. In contrast, the vast number of secular Jewish women living in, let's say Israel, just might not care very much about an ancient custom telling them what they can, and can not do. On the other hand, I would guess that Jewish Orthodox women do indeed care about what they can, and should not do.

>>And 50 Baywatch episodes.

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not really turned on, by watching all that silicon hanging around.

>>But, I've got the feeling that Canute doesn't >>listen to the most American forms of music.

Hmm, once in a while, I listen to music (just naming a few) by the following Americans artists:

Samuel Barber
Isaac Stern
John Coltrane
Miles Davis
Dave Brubeck
Wynton Marsalis
Woodie Guthrie
Johnny Cash
Bob Dylan
Janis Joplin
Kris Kristoffersen
Gram Parson
John Fogerty
Marvin Gaye
Lou Reed
Don McLean
The Boss
Warren Zevon
Tony Levin
Dan Stuart and Chuck Prophet
Eminem

Posted by Canute at March 12, 2005 02:12 PM

> Hmm, once in a while, I listen to music (just naming a few) by the following Americans artists:

Just like I said, not the most american forms of music.

Although, curiously enough, that is the list that non-Americans put up when they say "I listen to American music".

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 13, 2005 05:07 PM

> Hmm, once in a while, I listen to music (just naming a few) by the following Americans artists:

Just like I said, not the most american forms of music.

Although, curiously enough, that is the list that non-Americans put up when they say "I listen to American music".

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 13, 2005 05:07 PM

>>Just like I said, not the most american forms of music.

Please forgive me for not listening to Toby Keith, Loretta Lynn or the Oak Ridge Boys.

Posted by Canute at March 14, 2005 02:50 AM

Canute, few people care what kind of music you listen to, or think it relevant to this discussion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 14, 2005 04:25 AM

Rand, Andy Freeman seems to care.

I agree that it's irelevant what kind of music I listen to. However, when I mentioned that I've listened to an enormous amount of American music, it was part of a response to you.

Posted by Canute at March 14, 2005 05:27 AM

A response to me??

Did I somehow miss the part where I asked you what kind of music you listen to?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 14, 2005 05:35 AM

Do you actually read what I write? Since you stated earlier that; "I hope that not everyone in Europe is as ignorant about the US, and Americans, as you seem to be", I responded by saying:
________________________________________________
Well, I could name a few things that may indicate that I'm not totally ignorant of the land of the free; such as a couple of years of studying in Canada (when I travelled extensively throughout North America), that I've been to 27 of your states, read quite a bit of American History, read a number of major American literary works (20+ books), listened to an enormous amount of American Music, and not the least, followed the development of your space program since before the first launch of Columbia.
_________________________________________________

So you see Rand, initially, I never said "WHAT" kind of music I listen to. When I mentioned "WHAT" music I do, and do not listen to; where in two responses to Andy Freeman. I'm sorry if that annoyed you.

Posted by Canute at March 14, 2005 06:03 AM

OK, if you want to pick nits, I didn't ask you "what music" you listened to, either. My statement about ignorance of the US had nothing to do with popular culture.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 14, 2005 06:09 AM

Citizen Canute reminds me a little bit of some extreme Christian Fundamentalists - ones who feel so full of the Truth and Light that they simply _must_ tell you exactly how ignorant you really are and that you're damned if you don't follow their dogma of choice.

Posted by Brian Dunbar at March 14, 2005 06:34 AM

Rand, saying that all of the artists I mentioned are part of the "popular culture", is in fact pretty damned ignorant. For example, if you're listening to Woodie Guthrie's tales of the dustbowl and Depression, you may learn something about hardship and the struggle to survive everyday life in America in the 1930's; or would you claim otherwise?

Posted by Canute at March 14, 2005 06:42 AM

>>Citizen Canute reminds me a little bit of some
>>extreme Christian Fundamentalists - ones who
>>feel so full of the Truth and Light that they
>>simply _must_ tell you exactly how ignorant you
>>really are and that you're damned if you don't
>>follow their dogma of choice.

Really, care to elaborate as opposed to an accusation?

Posted by Canute at March 14, 2005 06:44 AM

It will tell you about Woody Guthrie's hardship and struggle. It might give a misleading portrait of America in general. It certainly won't tell you anything about most American's attitude toward Islam in the twenty-first century. Too many non-Americans think that just because they are (sometimes too) aware of our popular culture, that it renders an understanding of our country and true values. I certainly wouldn't pretend to think that I understand Jamaica because I listen to Bob Marley.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 14, 2005 07:07 AM

> Please forgive me for not listening to Toby Keith, Loretta Lynn or the Oak Ridge Boys.

So much for Canute's argument that his musical tastes give him useful knowledge of American culture. The disdain is a nice touch.

And, country is not the only hole. He's missing almost everything after the mid-1970s, and it's pretty weak from the 60s on.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 14, 2005 08:51 AM

>>It will tell you about Woody Guthrie's hardship >>and struggle. It might give a misleading >>portrait of America in general

You don't know what you're talking about.

Folk music - you know, the stuff Woody was playing - is an oral tradition, and it was a way for the illiterate masses to pass down stories of war, hardship and the struggle to survive everyday life, from generation to generation.

Actually, every culture has its own folk music, owing its sound to the rhythm and cadence of its own language, to its value systems, beliefs and legends.

Posted by Canute at March 14, 2005 09:51 AM

I'm quite familiar with folk music, thanks. I've in fact been known to play it occasionally on my very own Martin. Nonetheless, it's a narrow window through which to view a culture--certainly the America of many folk musicians, then and now, doesn't seem to be the one that I inhabit.

And to repeat, a soc1alist folk singer of the mid-twentieth century is going to provide very little insight into American attitudes toward Islam in the twenty first.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 14, 2005 10:13 AM

"Really, care to elaborate as opposed to an accusation?"

I wasn't making an accusation; that was an observation. And, no I don't care to elaborate.

Posted by Brian Dunbar at March 14, 2005 10:19 AM

Personally I think Canute sent this topic into strawman territory when he used Finnish statistics as representative of Europe. I don't buy that. The core of Europe is France and Germany and the problems they have with unassimilated Islamic populations is different than anything seen by the Finns. That is why the French and Germans are starting to wake up to the problem and the Finns are still in denial.

Saying one has a problem with an ethnic group does not mean you hate the ethnic group, it means you have a problem and should pay attention to it.

I think most Europeans would be surprised at how most Americans actually feel. Most of us are sad to watch thousands of years of wonderful history and culture slowly diluted and homogonized and disappearing without a fight.

Posted by rjschwarz at March 14, 2005 04:08 PM

> you may learn something about hardship and the struggle to survive everyday life in America in the 1930's; or would you claim otherwise?

I'll bite - how much can one learn from those songs.

I'll start:
(0) America sure is pretty.
(1) Being poor sucks.
(2) Rich people are better off.
(3) Being out of work can lead to being poor.
(4) Rich people don't have to work as much, or at all.
(5) I wish govt would do something but other people wish that govt wouldn't do what I'd like it to do; they're poopy-heads.
(6) She left and I'm unhappy/happy/drinking until I decide.
(7) She won't leave me/come to me.
(8) I did something stupid and bad things happened even though I'm a good person who clearly deserves better; I'm sad.
(9) Someone owes me something.

So, what else did Canute learn from Guthrie.

Posted by at March 14, 2005 06:39 PM

>>And to repeat, a soc1alist folk singer of the
>>mid-twentieth century is going to provide very
>>little insight into American attitudes toward
>>Islam in the twenty first.

To repeat what? Hmm, I've never claimed there was a link between Guthrie and Islam. Me saying that I've listened to an enormous amount of American music was a small PART of a response, to your claim that I'm ignorant about America - nothing else.

>>Too many non-Americans think that just because
>>they are (sometimes too) aware of our popular
>>culture, that it renders an understanding of
>>our country and true values.

It would be interesting to know how many non-Americans you actually know.

>>Personally I think Canute sent this topic into
>>strawman territory when he used Finnish
>>statistics as representative of Europe. I don't
>>buy that. The core of Europe is France and
>>Germany and the problems they have with
>>unassimilated Islamic populations is different
>>than anything seen by the Finns. That is why
>>the French and Germans are starting to wake up
>>to the problem and the Finns are still in denial.

Strawman territory? First, It doesn't help your credibility that you confuse Finland with Norway. Second, the statistics were used to point out that the fertility rate of the second generation of immigrants into OECD countries, tend to be more similar to that of the native population, than to those who migrated as adults.

It's interesting that you and Rand, seems to be so hung up only on Germany, and a nation, that I would guees, you usually refer to as the "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Is the reason for this, because both of these nations called shrub's bluff on WMD's in Iraq?

Now, I agree that the Muslim population in Germany and France is somewhat different than in "Finland" (or did you mean Norway?). However, are you actually aware that the Muslim population in Germany and France are at least as different?

Now, why are there so many Turks in Germany today? Well, they began arriving legally in Germany, in large numbers in the 1960s, after the construction of the Berlin Wall ended migration from East Germany. I don't know if you know this, but West-Germany actually needed to be rebuilt after WW2.

Today, Germany no longer recruits workers, in the same way, from abroad. However, it's foreign residents remain vital to the economy, parts of
which would shut down if they were to depart. they also contribute to the country's welfare and social insurance programs by paying twice as much in taxes and insurance premiums as they receive in benefits.

Germany has previously not been hospitable to extending citizenship rights to Turks. The ethnic definition of citizenship, allied to the myth that Germany was not a country of immigration, inevitably left the millions of Turks in Germany in a sort of limbo. However, this changed in 1999.

To atone for the crimes of the Third Reich, article 16/2 of the former West Germany's Basic Law, offered liberal asylum rights to those suffering political persecution. Until the 1980s, relatively few refugees took advantage of this provision. But in the second half of the decade, a new class of "jet-age refugees" began to make its way to Europe and especially to West Germany, which accepted more than any other West European country. In the mid-1980s, many refugees came from Iran and Lebanon. By 1991 most refugees originated in regions of war-torn former Yugoslavia, Romania, or Turkey. After heated debate, in 1993 the Bundestag passed legislation tthat amended the Basic Law and tightened restrictions on granting asylum.

In contrast to Germany, France drew on a different category of migrants; the Algerian soldiers who fought with the French colonial army, and who also left with de-colonization.

Here are some more aspects on Muslims living in Europe: http://www.nice2know.com/articles/travel/1338
_________________________________________________

Excerpts:

Muslims - especially Arab youths from North Africa - are, indeed, disproportionately represented in crime, including hate crime, mainly against Jews. Exclusively Muslim al-Qaida cells have been discovered in many West European countries. But this can be safely attributed to ubiquitous and trenchant long-term unemployment and to stunted upward mobility, both social and economic due largely to latent or expressed racism.

Moreover, the stereotype is wrong. The incidence of higher education and skills is greater among Muslim immigrants than in the general population;
a phenomenon known ,of course, as "brain drain". Europe attracts the best and the brightest - students, scholars, scientists, engineers and intellectuals - away from their destitute and politically dysfunctional homelands.
__________________________________________________

Maybe it would serve you and Rand well if you both started to read read some realistic articles on peaceful coexistence between Islam and the West, rather than stories that is being driven by the American Christian polity where the psuedo-scriptural has become an apocalyptic game plan for earthly political action: That is to say that Christ can only return to earth after an apocalypse in Israel called Armageddon which your fundamentalists are promoting with all their power so that The Rapture can take place. The final requirement is Israel's occupation of the Middle East as a return of its "Biblical lands," which in the radical Christian scheme of things, means more wars.

It's ironic that most of these evangelicals are, in fact, anti-semitic. At Armageddon, they apparently believe that, in a final mop-up operation by God, the Jews are annihilated, except the few who convert to Christianity.

A radical different perspective is presented by Philip Lewis, inter-faith adviser to the Bishop of Bradford, England, in the article:

Christians and Muslims in the West:
from isolation to shared citizenship?

http://www.ikstudiecenter.dk/Artikler/philiplewis-3-03.htm

>>I think most Europeans would be surprised at
>>how most Americans actually feel. Most of us
>>are sad to watch thousands of years of
>>wonderful history and culture slowly diluted
>>and homogonized and disappearing without a fight.

Has it occured to you that how "most Americans feel", could be based on erroneous information?

>>I'll bite - how much can one learn from those songs.

Surely that would depend on your ability to listen, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, your little rant tells me very little, in fact, about Guthrie, but rather much much more about your libertarian views on society.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/RADIO/woody/ah.html
__________________________________________________

While much of Woody's popularity as an American Hero is based on a misunderstanding or over-simplification of his life and work, there are other ways in which he has earned the title. In addition to the American Hero with a fixed, idealized meaning, is the more complex and dynamic American Hero. As shown in the preceding section, Woody Guthrie, as man and myth(s), played a central role in efforts to define things such as "the people" and "the folk", "integrity", and "authenticity", which are part of the larger effort to define the American identity. He also played a part in regional and national efforts growing out of the 30's, to reshape the nation conceptually and politically. Furthermore, his songs are about important and specific events in the nation's history such as the Dust Bowl in his Dust Bowl Ballads, the sinking of a ship in "Sinking of the Reuben James", and the plane crash of "Los Gatos". In this way,Woody was nothing less than a chronicler of American history
_________________________________________________

Posted by Canute at March 16, 2005 02:14 AM

Note that Canute didn't bother to actually describe anything that he learned from listening to Guthrie that wasn't in my list. Folks who have actually listened to Guthrie closely may have noticed that I left out a couple of things.

Instead, he quotes someone explaining why Guthrie is important.

Like I said, Canute's list is basically the same as the one other non-Americans have trotted out to support their claim to understand America because they partake of some of its culture. They never notice that the list isn't representative of American culture or, as in Canute's case, are proud that it doesn't, which pretty-much refutes the claim.

I'm beginning to suspect that they got the list from a common source.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 16, 2005 10:03 AM

Speaking of oppressed Estonians who would rather work than be protected and unemployed, how about Bulgarian musicians? In this case, one can't even make the "work conditions" argument - they're working in precisely the same conditions as the French musicians who want them to lose their jobs.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006427

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 16, 2005 04:41 PM

"Like I said, Canute's list is basically the same as the one other non-Americans have trotted out to support their claim to understand America because they partake of some of its culture."

Myself, I don't think you can claim to begin to understand American culture until you've seen 'Shane'.

Posted by Brian Dunbar at March 16, 2005 07:02 PM

>>Note that Canute didn't bother to actually
>>describe anything that he learned from
>>listening to Guthrie that wasn't in my list.
>>Folks who have actually listened to Guthrie
>>closely may have noticed that I left out a couple of things.

Well, to repeat: Your interpretation of Guthrie is hilarious. Claiming that he believed that "Someone owed" him "something", tells me all I need to know about your libertarian world view; that society can be run purely on selfishness and individualism, and that it doesn't owe anybody anything.

>>Instead, he quotes someone explaining why Guthrie is important.

Hmm, how stupid do you really have to be?

The Author explains explicitly that Woody was nothing less than a chronicler of American history, because his songs are about important and specific events in yout nation's history such as the Dust Bowl in his Dust Bowl Ballads, the sinking of a ship in "Sinking of the Reuben James", and the plane crash of "Los Gatos".

So you see, listening to Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos), one can learn about a plane deporting migrant farm workers back to Mexico that crashed, and how the nameless migrants "all scattered like dry leaves" in Los Gatos Canyon where the plane apparently went down.

>>Like I said, Canute's list is basically the
>>same as the one other non-Americans have
>>trotted out to support their claim to
>>understand America because they partake of some
>>of its culture.

Canute's list?

To suggest that my "list" supports my "claim" to understand America, is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. When I said that I've listened to an enormous amount of American music, it was PART of response to Rand's claim that I'm ignorant about America, or is that too difficult for you to comprehend? Is your problem, that you don't care to read what's EXACTLY been said in a thread, or that you need to be spoonfed every little detail like a braindead two year old?

>>They never notice that the list isn't
>>representative of American culture

To repeat; I've never claimed that "the list" was fully representative of American culture.

>>or, as in Canute's case, are proud that it
>>doesn't, which pretty-much refutes the claim.

It was you who initially stated, that you've got the feeling that I don't listen to "the most American forms of music". In my response, I mentioned an American composer (Samuel Barber), the eminent violinist Isaac Stern, experimental jazz from the era starting with John Coltrane and Miles Davies, Dave Brubeck (whose Take Five was among one of the first songs I learned to play on the piano), trumpeteer Wynton Marsalis, two country players (Johnny Cash and Kris Kristofferson), and the rest; artists representing the popular culture (pop/rock music).

>>And, country is not the only hole. He's missing
>>almost everything after the mid-1970s, and it's
>>pretty weak from the 60s on.

Somehow you managed to interpret my "list" to only conclude popular music. However, I can always name - just to refute your claim - a few more American musicians/bands that I, once in a while, listen to (Sorry Rand): Pattie Smith, Alice Cooper, Tom Waits, Ry Cooder, Violent Femmes, B-52s, REM, Love Tractor, Nirvana, Tortoise, Children of the Corn, Cursive, Azure Ray, Lullaby for the Working Class, Neutral Milk Hotel and World Burns To Death.

Now, as for country: Yes I don't listen to the string of US-patriotic songs that emerged after the 9-11 attacks, some of them fist-shaking anthems like Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, And Blue".

By the way, I guess you did love that good old American tolerance that was on display two years ago, when the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines criticized Bush before a London audience, and a number of country stations in the US dropped the band's songs from their playlists, and fans destroyed their CDs.

Posted by Canute at March 18, 2005 05:16 AM

Canute, Finland, Norway, whatever. I apologize for mixing the two it's an inexcusable lapse. Luckily, if you are right, Europe will keep together and in a couple decades we can all forget about the internal borders, flags, and cultures and concentrate instead on Europe.

One nation, one culture, one language. I believe that is what the French mean when they say United States of Europe. Is that what you mean?

Posted by rjschwarz at March 18, 2005 08:16 AM

> Well, to repeat: Your interpretation of Guthrie is hilarious.

Since that is the first use of the term "hilarious" in this context, it can't be a repeat.

Also, I wasn't "interpreting" Guthrie. Canute claimed that he learned from listening to Guthrie, so I asked what he learned. I summarized some of what can be found in Guthrie songs and asked Canute to fill in the gaps, something that he still hasn't managed.

Canute's complaint about my observation that some Guthrie songs teach "someone owes me something" is interesting. He doesn't assert that I'm wrong. Instead, he claims that the very observation says that my political beliefs are wrong.

> >>Instead, he quotes someone explaining why Guthrie is important.

> Hmm, how stupid do you really have to be?

Hold that thought.

> The Author explains explicitly that Woody was nothing less than a chronicler of American history

In other words, "The Author" explains why Guthrie is important, as I said. That may be interesting, but it doesn't answer my "what did Canute learn by listening to Guthrie".

Surely Canute didn't have to listen to Guthrie to learn that ships occasionally sink in America.

> I've never claimed that "the list" was fully representative of American culture.

That's true, and it concedes my point. Canute claimed that the list was an important part of what he knows about America. I pointed out that it had enough holes to prove that Canute doesn't know enough.

> two country players (Johnny Cash and Kris Kristofferson)

BTW - Cash and Kristofferson aren't particularly country. Collectively, they did a lot of fantastic music, but only a small fraction was country, so Canute's argument is like claiming that Kiss is soft-rock.

> Somehow you managed to interpret my "list" to only conclude popular music.

No, I evaluated it in the context it was offered. As to whether Canute was wrong then or wrong now, I'm losing interest. (The "additions" don't actually make the list satisfy Canute's reqts, but ....)

And for those keeping score at home, country isn't the only elephant he missed.

As to tolerance, perhaps Canute will tell us the difference between his Toby Keith boycott and Americans who won't listen to the Dixie Chicks.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 18, 2005 08:58 AM

As to tolerance, perhaps Canute will tell us the difference between his Toby Keith boycott and Americans who won't listen to the Dixie Chicks.

Didn't you know? It's all right to be intolerant, as long as you're intolerant of the right people...

We can count on Canute to keep us informed as to who we should tolerate and who we shouldn't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 18, 2005 09:12 AM

>>I summarized some of what can be found in
>>Guthrie songs and asked Canute to fill in the
>>gaps, something that he still hasn't managed.

Why should I care to "fill in the gaps" on your hilarious interpretation of Guthrie, and on your terms?

However, it's interesting to note that while your "list" seems to display a contemptious attitude towards poor people, you don't seem to realize that Guthrie was not only writing about poor people, but in fact, more often about migrant workers. In California, for example, he'd experienced for himself, the intense scorn, hatred, and antagonism of resident Californians who were opposed to the influx of outsiders; and especially Mexicans with a high melanin content.

When Guthrie wrote Deportee, it was after he heard about the plane crash. The news reports apparently downplayed the tragedy and explained that, with the exception of the pilot and his wife, the dead were "just deportees." In his song, Guthrie sought to remind listeners of the tragedy of migrant workers’ lives, as well as their anonymous deaths.

>>Canute's complaint about my observation that
>>some Guthrie songs teach "someone owes me
>>something" is interesting. He doesn't assert
>>that I'm wrong. Instead, he claims that the
>>very observation says that my political beliefs are wrong.

No, I'm not saying that your political beliefs are "wrong", I'm just implying that your list reveals a lot about your world view. If you feel that "some" Guthrie songs are teaching you that "someone owes me something", then I would say that your observation reveal a lack of understanding that marginalized, disenfranchised, and oppressed people may have legitimate plights, and that they're not necessarily - as you seem to believe - jealous of rich people.

>>>> I've never claimed that "the list" was fully representative of American culture.

>>That's true, and it concedes my point. Canute
>>claimed that the list was an important part of
>>what he knows about America. I pointed out that
>>it had enough holes to prove that Canute doesn't know enough.

It's factually wrong to say that I claimed that "the list was an important part" of what I know about America. BTW, you seem to be notorious in your pursuit of being dishonest intelectually.

First, which "lists" are you actually talking about?

In my first "list", I said - in a response to Rand - that I could name "A FEW THINGS THAT MAY INDICATE THAT I'M NOT TOTALLY
IGNORANT" of the US. You should have been able to infer from that statement, that in fact; I could have mentioned a number of other things, but chose to mention only a FEW things.

As for the music "list", initially you wrote that: "But, I've got the feeling that Canute doesn't listen to the most American forms of music."

In my response, I mentioned a few American artists that I once in a while listen to. Today, I listen mostly to classical music (sorry Rand), but OCCASIONALLY I listen to the American artists/musicians/bands that I mentioned. This doesn't mean that I, in fact, haven't listened to
many more American "forms" of music. I just saw no point in mentioning EVERYTHING that I've listened to.

>>>>two country players (Johnny Cash and Kris Kristofferson)

>>BTW - Cash and Kristofferson aren't
>>particularly country. Collectively, they did a
>>lot of fantastic music, but only a small
>>fraction was country, so Canute's argument is
>>like claiming that Kiss is soft-rock.

So you're also saying that Hank Williams, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, David Allen Coe, Johnny Paycheck, og George Jones aren't particularily country as well, because they also had problems with the record industry in Nashville, where originality is stamped out and conformity is the norm.

>>And for those keeping score at home, country
>>isn't the only elephant he missed

Are you trying to turn this into a test on what I know about American music?

>>As to tolerance, perhaps Canute will tell us
>>the difference between his Toby Keith boycott
>>and Americans who won't listen to the Dixie Chicks.

I don't "boycott" Toby Keith, I just don't listen to his music which I find uninteresting and not very original. You should note, however, that this doesn't mean that I've not listened to a few of his songs.

Now, you've got to be pretty thick to not seeing a difference between a "boycott" - to use your term - of Toby Keith's songs, and a physical destruction of CDs in a public arena. I would guess that you don't mind burning books either.

Posted by Canute at March 21, 2005 04:43 AM

Canute, the "migrant workers" that Woody sang about were poor people. And they weren't just, or even largely, Mexicans--they were migrants, like Woody, from Oklahoma, with the same melanin content as the Californians. They were called "Okies." The only song I can think of off the top of my head that was explicitly about Mexican migrants was "Plane Wreck in Los Gatos."

Sorry, I know this will come as a shock to you when writing about racist Amerikkka, on which you fancy yourself such an expert.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2005 05:05 AM

Rand, from where in my response to Andy Freeman, do you infer that I'm implying that the "migrant workers" were just, or largely, Mexicans?

>>The only song I can think of off the top of my
>>head that was explicitly about Mexican migrants
>>was "Plane Wreck in Los Gatos."

What's your point? The title of the song is Deportee (Plane Crash At Los Gatos Canyon). Didn't I mention the Mexican migrants and the song in the same context?

>>Sorry, I know this will come as a shock to you
>>when writing about racist Amerikkka.

The vast majority of American news outlets only reports the 1500+ dead US service men and women in Iraq, and they never report on the civilan death toll of Iraqis.

It's interesting to compare this to the plane crash at Los Gatos, where the news reports at the time downplayed what had happened, and explained that, with the exception of the pilot and his wife, the dead were "just deportees".

>>on which you fancy yourself such an expert.

I guess it really ticks you people off, that I dare to mention a few negative aspects of America.

Posted by Canute at March 21, 2005 05:41 AM

Ooops, the correct title of the song is: Deportees (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)

Posted by Canute at March 21, 2005 05:50 AM

where in my response to Andy Freeman, do you infer that I'm implying that the "migrant workers" were just, or largely, Mexicans?

You implied that they were the ones to which the (white) Californians were most hostile. The Okies took plenty of abuse, too (and occasionally at the hands of native Hispanic landowners). Life is a little more complicated than you want to think.

The vast majority of American news outlets only reports the 1500+ dead US service men and women in Iraq, and they never report on the civilan death toll of Iraqis.

"Never report"? That's utter nonsense. You can be sure that the media here maintains a steady drumbeat, at every opportunity, to make things look as bad as possible there, including dead Iraqies (though admittedly it's been tamped down a bit since November, now that there's no longer an opportunity to remove Chimpy McSmirkyHitler from office over it).

What's actually not reported is how many of those Iraqi casualties are the terrorists who are causing them. And where is Iraq Body Count's toll of innocent Iraqi casualties caused by the "insurgents"? Or is it all still Bush's fault?

I guess it really ticks you people off, that I dare to mention a few negative aspects of America.

No, what ticks me off (I can't speak for anyone else) is that you fall back on Eurocliches about us, seem to think that listening to folk singers somehow provides keen insights into our national character, rather than into merely that folk singer's view of his own life experiences, and that you rarely have anything positive to say.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2005 05:56 AM

>>You implied that they were the ones to which
>>the (white) Californians were most hostile. The
>>Okies took plenty of abuse, too

I wrote: "In California, for example, he'd experienced for himself, the intense scorn, hatred, and antagonism of resident Californians who were opposed to the influx of outsiders; and especially Mexicans with a high melanin content."

How do you manage to infer from what I wrote, that the Okies didn't take plenty of abuse?

>>(and occasionally at the hands of native Hispanic
>>landowners). Life is a little more complicated
>>than you want to think.

Didn't I write: "antagonism of resident Californians"? Couldn't a native Hispanic landowner be a resident Californian?

>>"Never report"? That's utter nonsense. You can
>>be sure that the media here maintains a steady
>>drumbeat, at every opportunity, to make things
>>look as bad as possible there

A stedy drumbeat of images of civilian casualties that were caused by US military operations?

One Example:
_________________________________________________
Excerpt

The huge divergence between American and world public opinion polls on the war in Iraq reflects the vast differences in war reporting being done by U.S. and foreign mass media networks. Due to self-censorship and official restraints, which govern what U.S. media networks report, Americans are getting a distorted and “sanitized” version of events in Iraq while Europeans and others are much more likely to see news reports and images that convey the brutal reality of the war in Iraq.
__________________________________________________

>>seem to think that listening to folk singers
>>somehow provides keen insights into our national character

Nonsense

>>and that you rarely have anything positive to say.

Hmm, haven't you noticed; I usually only write a comment when you're going overboard in a Europe/EU rant - as was the case with this thread.

Posted by Canute at March 21, 2005 06:46 AM

How do you manage to infer from what I wrote, that the Okies didn't take plenty of abuse?

>>(and occasionally at the hands of native Hispanic
>>landowners). Life is a little more complicated
>>than you want to think.

Didn't I write: "antagonism of resident Californians"? Couldn't a native Hispanic landowner be a resident Californian?

You wrote "melanin content." Any reasonable person would infer that you thought this was about race.

And you overprotest, methinks. The only "rant" that I started this post with was to point out that not all are on board with the EU constitution. Not even, according to the latest polls, the French.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2005 08:09 AM

> Why should I care to "fill in the gaps" on your hilarious interpretation of Guthrie, and on your terms?

Canute claims to have learned a lot from Guthrie. When asked what he learned, he posts someone else's argument that Guthrie is important.

Canute is under no obligation to answer the question, but the only two responsive answers are "I'm not answering" and a description of what he's learned.

As either response would reveal that Guthrie isn't all that relevant to Canute's purposes, the abuse is not particularly surprising. But, it doesn't help Canute's position.

> It's factually wrong to say that I claimed that "the list was an important part" of what I know about America.

Those who've read the exchanges above know that Canute is lying.

> you don't seem to realize that Guthrie was not only writing about poor people, but in fact, more often about migrant workers.

Canute shouldn't try mind reading. My fatherand I were both migrant workers.

>>BTW - Cash and Kristofferson aren't
>>particularly country.

>So you're also saying that Hank Williams, >Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, >David Allen Coe, Johnny Paycheck, og George >Jones aren't particularily country as well,
>because they also had problems with the record >industry in Nashville, where originality is >stamped out and conformity is the norm.

No, not at all. Their music distinguishes the two Cash and Kristofferson from the other folks.

But, you'd have to actually know the music to know that.

I do like the "the man" paranoia though.

> Now, you've got to be pretty thick to not seeing a difference between a "boycott" - to use your term - of Toby Keith's songs, and a physical destruction of CDs in a public arena.

Since the physical destruction of said CDs came after their purchase, the folks that Canute criticized gave money to the Dixie Chicks. Is the difference that Canute didn't give money to Keith?

Surely Canute doesn't think that there's something wrong with people destroying their own property.... Surely he doesn't think that destroying said property can cause a shortage.

> Due to self-censorship and official restraints, which govern what U.S. media networks report, Americans are getting a distorted and “sanitized” version of events in Iraq while Europeans and others are much more likely to see news reports and images that convey the brutal reality of the war in Iraq.

What makes Canute so certain ithat the other reports are significantly better?

Which reminds me - does Canute think that pre-war Iraq was better? If not, what was his plan for fixing the problem? (Note, said plan had better be different than the about-to-be-lifted sanctions because they failed and can't involve military action.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 21, 2005 08:23 AM

Canute reads a lot into "Someone owes me something". Perhaps he'd be so good as to tell us how one can mention entitlement without triggering his "you hate poor people" judgement.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 21, 2005 08:52 AM

>>Canute claims to have learned a lot from
>>Guthrie. When asked what he learned, he posts
>>someone else's argument that Guthrie is important.

Further down in your response, you state: "Those who've read the exchanges above know that Canute is lying." Hmm, I would guess that any honest, reasonable, and open minded person - who would actually read the exchanges - might come to a different conclusion.

Surely, you've got a lot of nerve to say: "Canute claims to have learned a lot from Guthrie" - and at the same time accusing me of lying.

In the thread, I said earlier that: "For example, if you're listening to Woodie Guthrie's tales of the dustbowl and Depression, you may learn something about hardship and the struggle to survive everyday life in America in the 1930's; or would you claim otherwise?"

So, does "may learn something" and "learned a lot" have the same meaning? No, of course it doesn't. However, you seem to go out of your way to twist and exaggerate my arguments in the most absurd fashion imaginable, and this is but one example, in order to score petty points.

If you want to have any credibility left, you need to state ECACTLY where I've said that I "learned a lot from Guthrie"

>>As either response would reveal that Guthrie
>>isn't all that relevant to Canute's purposes

Canute's purposes? Aren't you just a little bit paranoid?

>>>>So you're also saying that Hank Williams,
>>>>Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Waylon
>>>>Jennings, David Allen Coe, Johnny Paycheck,
>>>>og George Jones aren't particularily country
>>>>as well, because they also had problems with
>>>>the record industry in Nashville, where
>>>>originality is stamped out and conformity is the norm.

>>No, not at all. Their music distinguishes the
>>two Cash and Kristofferson from the other folks.
>>But, you'd have to actually know the music to know that.

Oh-Oh-Oh, here you go again. You see, I know the music. Didn't Kris Kristofferson once say: "If it sounds Country man, then that's what it is, it's a Country song." Wouldn't you agree that "Country Music" isn't that easy to define?

As you should know - that is, if you'd actually READ what I wrote - initially, I said that I listen to Cash and Kristofferson ONCE IN A WHILE. This doesn't mean that I've not listened to many more country singers, songwriters and players; in fact, I've got plenty of country records and CDs in my collection that very seldom get played. Why? As I've said, I listen mostly to classical music and can't seem to find the time to listen to much of what I've got.

So what do you do? Again, you go out of your way to twist and exaggerate my arguments. When I mentioned Johnny Cash and Kris Kristofferson as two country performers that I ONCE IN WHILE listen to, you wrote: "BTW - Cash and Kristofferson aren't particularly country, they did a lot of fantastic music, but only a small fraction was country, so Canute's argument is like claiming that Kiss is soft-rock."

Again, where did I mention that music by Cash or Kristofferson is the only country-music that I've listened to?

>>Surely Canute doesn't think that there's
>>something wrong with people destroying their
>>own property.... Surely he doesn't think that
>>destroying said property can cause a shortage.

By all means, go right ahead destroying your own property. Why should I care.

It's interesting to note, however, that destroying records or CDs is nothing new in the US. Aren't you aware that all hell broke loose in America when John Lennon said that "We're more popular than Jesus now". Rather than a blatant attack on christianity, Lennon was sympathising with the current state of religion, saying it was a shame that the Beatles had become more important than religion. Religion held no interest for the youth of the time. This single quote (taken out of context) was to spark protests across your Bible Belt. Beatles records were burned en masse, and the Ku Klux Klan burned a Beatles effigy and nailed Beatles albums to a burning cross.

>>If not, what was his plan for fixing the
>>problem? (Note, said plan had better be
>>different than the about-to-be-lifted sanctions
>>because they failed and can't involve military action.)

You see, there was no "problem". Iraq had no WMDs. In fact, the WMD justification of the war, and shrub's insinuation that Saddam was tied to 9/11 were completely bogus.

The problem for the US, of course, is that your war in Iraq has changed its goals more or less continuously. From WMDs, to eliminating a brutal dictatorship, to building democracy in Iraq, the stated goals by your administratiuon, seem to come down to a corporate end, rather than a human rights and democracy dream – namely, control of oil resources.

Posted by Canute at March 22, 2005 06:57 AM

In fact, the WMD justification of the war, and shrub's insinuation that Saddam was tied to 9/11 were completely bogus.

No, it's your assertion that the president (I assume that's the person to whom you're so disrespectfully, and childishly, referring) made such an insinuation that's bogus.

How can something so utterly false as such a statement be a problem? The goals never changed--you just weren't paying attention, and were only focused on WMD. And the goal with respect to oil resources was primarily to remove them from Saddam's control.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 22, 2005 07:03 AM

>>>>Didn't I write: "antagonism of resident
>>>>Californians"? Couldn't a native Hispanic
>>>>landowner be a resident Californian?

>>You wrote "melanin content." Any reasonable
>>person would infer that you thought this was
>>about race.

No, any reasonable person should be able to infer that in California, at the time, there were, intense scorn, hatred, and antagonism directed towards the migrant workers, and that it was even worse if you had a high melanin content.

Posted by Canute at March 22, 2005 07:11 AM

Ah, it was about melanin content, but not about race. Glad to hear you clear that up.

[rolling eyes]

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 22, 2005 07:17 AM

> I said that I listen to Cash and Kristofferson ONCE IN A WHILE. This doesn't mean that I've not listened to many more country singers,

Now our anonymous coward is blaming me because his list was incomplete. And still gets it wrong.

I pointed out that there were huge holes in his list. He responded by arguing that Cash and Kristofferson filled one of them. When I pointed out that he was wrong, he blathers about other folks he didn't bother to list, folks who it turns out he doesn't listen to much.

Now he wants to keep amending his list until it satisfies the load he put on it originally. Sorry, that's not how it works.

> By all means, go right ahead destroying your own property. Why should I care.

Ah but just a couple of messages ago, he did. He claimed that it was evidence of some great evil, that it distinguished good boycotters like himself from evil Americans who bought something and then destroyed it, the latter being censors while the former being good taste.

> You see, there was no "problem". Iraq had no WMDs.

I wonder if the anonymous coward will change his name when this doesn't work out. In particular, we're now hearing details about the campaign to dismantle and move said WMDs during the run-up and early part of the war.

The anonymous coward's problem is that he lacks both class and discretion. Does the US make mistakes? Yes, but who does better? (Note the dual requirement of "does" and "better".)

The Euros are particularly bad in this respect.
Disagree? Cite the last big issue where there was major disagreement, we know the outcome, AND the Euros were correct.

And, if we were going to control the oil, we'd have simply taken it and left the rest of Iraq to rot. You know, like Euro colonialism. Instead, we're building more infrastructure than Iraq ever had.

Posted by at March 22, 2005 07:49 AM

> No, any reasonable person should be able to infer that in California, at the time, there were, intense scorn, hatred, and antagonism directed towards the migrant workers, and that it was even worse if you had a high melanin content.

Giggle. Does our anonymous coward really think that melanin plays a big role in identifying Mexicans?

For someone so consistently wrong, you'd think that he'd be better at recovery. Instead, he just finds a new way to screw up.

Two

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 22, 2005 07:55 AM

>>Ah, it was about melanin content, but not about
>>race. Glad to hear you clear that up.
>>[rolling eyes]

Well, it's not only Andy Freeman that's good at twisting and exaggerating one's arguments. You respond to my reply out of context. In your response above you said: "Canute, the "migrant workers" that Woody sang about were poor people. And they weren't just, or even largely, Mexicans--they were migrants"

You seemed to believe that I meant mostly Mexicans, and were more than eager to only hone in on race.

In my response I stated that any reasonable person easily would have recognized the meaning; namely that intense scorn, hatred, and antagonism directed towards the migrant workers, and that it was even worse if you had a high melanin content.

>>No, it's your assertion that the president (I assume
>>that's the person to whom you're so disrespectfully,
>> and childishly, referring) made such an insinuation that's bogus.

Why did so many Americans believe there was a connection?

When you invaded and occupied Iraq as part of your ongoing "war on terror", Bush administration officials reminded Americans, over and over again, in the run-up to war, that it began when you were attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11.

Why would anyone think the two were in any way related?

Well, part of the reason, I guess, could be that shrub said that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

>>How can something so utterly false as such a
>>statement be a problem? The goals never >>changed--you just weren't paying attention, and
>>were only focused on WMD.

You seem to be blatantly ignorant to the fact that while shrub used WMDs as his primary rationale in seeking the American public's support for the war, it was the ONLY rationale presented to the world at large.

>>And the goal with respect to oil resources was
>>primarily to remove them from Saddam's control.

Nice way of putting it, or why don't you just say that the intent was actually to steel it from Saddam?

Posted by Canute at March 22, 2005 08:42 AM

Which was correct.

Why would anyone think the two were in any way related?

Which is also correct. It doesn't follow from that that Saddam himself was responsible for September 11, unless one indulges in logical fallacies. Saddam was a supporter of terrorists, in many ways, large and small, and removing him was a vital part of the war against totalitarian Islamisms and Arab nationalism.

How can I be ignorant of a fact that's not a fact? Just because it's the only one that you paid any attention to doesn't mean that it was the only one that he talked about.

>>And the goal with respect to oil resources was
>>primarily to remove them from Saddam's control.

Nice way of putting it, or why don't you just say that the intent was actually to steel it from Saddam?

Because that wouldn't be an accurate way of phrasing it, since it was never legally his to begin with. It was removing contraband from the clutches of a criminal who had stolen it, and returning it to its rightful owners, the people of Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 22, 2005 08:56 AM

>>I wonder if the anonymous coward will change his
>>name when this doesn't work out. In particular,
>>we're now hearing details about the campaign to
>>dismantle and move said WMDs during the run-up
>>and early part of the war.

You've got some set of balls, I'll give you that, to come forward and admit that you were to scared to join the Marines in Iraq.

Hmm, and all of this time you've been an ardent cheerleader for military action, anywhere, at any time, and were more than eager to fasten the triggers for the ones that were actually going to Iraq.

What I don't understand, though, is that you've continued to pump iron in your testosterone-filled gym, when you had no intention of going to Iraq in the first place.

So, I'll repeat it once again: You've certainly got balls to come forward to not only admit that you're a coward, but also that your testicles are still shrinking.

>>Which is also correct. It doesn't follow from
>>that that Saddam himself was responsible for
>>September 11, unless one indulges in logical
>>fallacies.

The point is that words are used in ways that manipulate public fear, while facts are beside the point. The aim - whether conscious or unconscious - is to confuse rather than clarify, and to cause the listener to believe an illusion rather than the truth.

An Example: Several times, Bush has said; "Before September the 11th, 2001, we thought oceans would protect us forever." Translation: 'We were safe, now we're in danger, and the danger is so severe that you must give me all possible power. What the oceans once did, now only I can protect you; and an all out war against Iraq - hmm, excuse me, war on terror - is the only thing that will do."

But the thing about the ocean is not true, of course, because the Soviet Union's ICBMs were aimed at the U.S. for 35 years despite the two oceans' barriers.

Aldous Huxley once wrote that tyrants often use propaganda techniques such as repetition of catchwords. Huxley mentioned, as an example, Hitler's propaganda efforts to appeal to the emotions of the masses instead of reason.

Hitler systematically exploited the German people's hidden fears and anxieties, and it's my judgement that your administration has exploited the American people's fears of terrorism since September 11. By repeating the same mantra of "WAR ON TERROR" and "IRAQ" - in the same context, over and over again - your POTUS managed to confuse a considerable part of americans rather than enlighten them.

Just 2 short months before the start of the Iraq war, the Princeton Survey Research Associates polled more than 1,200 Americans. They asked a very simple question: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?"

Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi; 44 percent believed that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi; another 6 percent thought that one of the hijackers was a citizen of Iraq. This left 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer.

Well, over her, we knew pretty quick after 911, that there were 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese, and two from the United Arab Emirates that were involved. Hmm, go figure why this was the case?

>>>>You seem to be blatantly ignorant to the fact
>>>>that while shrub used WMDs as his primary
>>>>rationale in seeking the American public's
>>>>support for the war, it was the ONLY rationale
>>>>presented to the world at large.

>>How can I be ignorant of a fact that's not a
>>fact? Just because it's the only one that you
>>paid any attention to doesn't mean that it was
>>the only one that he talked about.

Well, it was the only one he talked about in the Security Council, but I should have guessed, of course, that you and Norm really don't give a damn about that organization.

>>Because that wouldn't be an accurate way of
>>phrasing it, since it was never legally his to
>>begin with. It was removing contraband from the
>>clutches of a criminal who had stolen it, and
>>returning it to its rightful owners, the people of Iraq.

Hmm, I thought you knew about the fact that it was your very own CIA that helped to organise the Baath party's coup against the nationalist General Abd al-Karim Qassim in 1963, after he nationalised the western-owned Iraqi Petroleum Company and took the country out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact, and that the coup, consequently, led to appalling massacres.

You should note, however, that I'm not saying that Saddam took part in that particular coup, or that he was a CIA-agent. The links between him and the US came later, when the US gave intelligence briefings and satellite photographs to the Iraqi military during Saddam's war against Iran.

Posted by Canute at March 23, 2005 01:36 PM

> You've got some set of balls, I'll give you that, to come forward and admit that you were to scared to join the Marines in Iraq.

Once again the anonymous coward wheels out his mind-reading machine.

It may have been a coincidence that he dropped the "migrant worker" thing after I pointed out that I'd been one. I wonder if he'll do the same this time?

His non-response to "done better" pretty much proves the "if it weren't for low class, he'd have no class at all".

As to the "but the US helped Saddam", decent people would think that past help creates an obligation to fix the problem. AC's kindred souls seem to think that it obligates them to continue help. Then again, they had more invested and more to lose.

It really is all about the money when it comes to predicting Euro behavior.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 24, 2005 06:45 AM

Post a comment