I don't hate the USA. There is lots to like about the U.S.A., but I sure don't swallow the B.S. and extremism, which is so over the top someone has to speak up. Including quite a few Americans, unfortunately not enough. Frankly I see most current Americans as spineless twerps who don't stand up for themselves and just believe and do what they are told. That will anger them because they don't perceive themselves as such.
They used to be so much better.
As someone else has said here, the attitude of many to the bus drivers, who are just trying to live a decent life is quite offensive.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I have spent time in many countries, even behind the Iron Curtain when that still existed, it made me realise that propaganda is ubiquitious and comes in many styles and degrees. Americans don't realise they are just on the other side of the coin. They are inundated with commercial propaganda and have a terrible, compliant media that mostly doesn't do its job. Not helped by the</span>
ubiquitious flag waving, and accusations of anti-Americanism any time anyone says something they don't like to hear, then comes the knee-jerk turn to censorship and shouting down opposing views.
You mention human rights. The USA has exempted itself from all the international treaties on the subject. Over 2 and a quarter million Americans are in prison with almost another 5 million on parole or doing some other service. Doesn't that ring alarm bells? And torture? For heavens sake what era are we living in? America ruined its moral superiority all on its own, without anyone else having to lift a finger.
The biggest problem, and the most dangerous, is the ignorance and frankly weird beliefs that are prevalent in the States and in very few other places. Where else is there such an anti-Science, anti-Rational majority unless amongst the muslim nations they are currently butting heads with?
Feel free to counter anything I have said if I am wrong or made errors. But don't give me the usual ad hominems.
The more people in prison, the better; it's a sign of a strong, good civilization.
The police only catch a fraction of the criminals, so in an ideal world, there would be far more prisons to keep the scum of society off the streets.
Feel free to counter anything I have said if I am wrong or made errors. But don't give me the usual ad hominems.
Well, I don't think it's valid for you to criticize the USA for racism. I mean, racism is an individual decision so it just doesn't make sense to criticize a nation for it. Unless of course the national government is deliberately running a racial superiority agenda, but I don't see that here.
And saying "There are X million people in prison, isn't that bad," also doesn't make sense. It could be good or bad, depending on whether the laws they were convicted under were just and their trials were fair. For this argument to make sense it would have to be "There are X million people in prison under law Y, and this law is unjust because Z." But just quoting the number without context doesn't really mean anything.
And saying "X number of people hold anti-scientific views" leaves open the question of "What particular anti-scientific views?" Because if someone wants to believe in a new-agey Yoga Chi-energy thing, but they're not hurting anybody, that's ok. Or if it's Christians who follow Jesus' example of peaceful preaching, and they come to your door wanting to discuss the bible, just say "Sorry, I don't believe in it," no big deal. It's only a problem if those anti-scientific views are also violent, but most of those seem to originate outside of the US.
First the USA would not need the complex laws and regulations that require minimisation of discrimination, if there was no racism to counter in the first place.
Second I only had to watch people's seating choices in the subways, if you are black you are last to get a non-black neighbour.
Then there is the history. Despite the declaration "That all men are created equal" the USA endorsed slavery until January 1 1863 and it took a war to finally cease the practice of slavery in name, but not end the racism that made it possible. Racism that was held to be biblically justified. By devious methods black Americans were held in virtual slavery for almost another hundred years after their supposed emancipation. People are still being killed due to that racism and the perpetrators were getting protection from the law right into the 1970's. Even more recently if you count the George Zimmerman case and others.
It isn't just African Americans who suffered, non-Europeans of all descriptions were also targeted. Chinese particularly were frequently attacked and murdered in the Mid West after being recruited in large numbers to build the railways as coolies, a form of indentured slavery. The discrimination was official, the Chinese Exclusion Act was only repealed in 1943, two years after China became an ally of the USA in WWII.
We hardly need go into detail over the treatment of the native Americans.
Despite fighting for their country black Americans were segregated and discriminated against in the armed services and after WWII barely received any of the benefits of the GI bill that set up many white soldiers for the post war affluence.
Latin Americans, despite being part of the USA for many generations after the USA conquered the west and south west, were still being deported to Mexico in the 1930's. Los Angeles County alone deported 12,000 in the early 1930's. Those remaining were forced by job discrimination to work for below poverty wages. Something that is still happening widely in agriculture in Florida, where modern slavery is still practiced.
Discrimination and its associated poverty leads to non-white citizens crossing the law more often. An unchecked police force means that non-white Americans are systematically searched and apprehended at a far greater rate than white Americans. That leads to more incarcerations, legitimate or not.
The USA has according to the ICPS2,228,424 people in prison, the highest number and rate in the world.
The next highest number of incarcerated is in China, a communist dictatorship, a mere 1,701,344 despite a population 4 times as large.
Quite an achievement!
The proportion of people of color being imprisoned is startling. 1 in 15 African Americans and 1 in 36 Hispanic. Only 1 in 106 white men goes to prison.An amazing 1 in 3 black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. The reasons for this are systemic and outlined in the link.
Recent events show that the police still shoot black people almost with impunity, and conservative Republicans have been emboldened by their gerrymandered success in Congress and the Senate, to being a bit more open about the beliefs they hold close to their hearts. Black electorates still get discriminatory handling at elections even today, and if the conservative High Court gets its way the last legal barriers to prevent this will be stripped away.
How does this affect the bus drivers? Have a look who they are, and how they are vilified when they seek to organise themselves.
^^^ Are you aware of the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923? Not a U.S. law and quite discriminatory. I guess that means Canada is off the list of approved countries now.
^^^ Are you aware of the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923? Not a U.S. law and quite discriminatory. I guess that means Canada is off the list of approved countries now.
I see you changed it from:
"^^^ The Chinese Exclusion Act was written and implemented in Canada, not the US."
Wrong. But it seems you finally checked. Now you are getting the hang of it maybe you can further your education.
Naturalization Act Federal USA 1795 Restricted naturalisation of residents to "free white persons" of "good moral character".
Chinese Exclusion Act Federal USA law 1882 prohibited all immigration of Chinese labourers and placed them in the same category as imbeciles and the syphilitic insane.
California Alien Land Law of 1913 State prevented Asians from owning land and in 1923 lead to a Supreme Court ruling that Indians were non-white and stripped them of their land titles.
Immigration Act of 1917 (aka Asiatic Barred Zone Act) Federal USA law 1917 banned all Asians and Pacific Islanders.
This lead me to investigate what was the procedure with Britain, which had a complex set of colonies and dominions. Near as I can make out if you were born in Britain you were British and if you were from the colonies you had free entry as a British subject, which included Americans prior to 1770, without qualification to race or color. This explains the diversity and multi-cultural character of Britain, particularly as a refuge for those fleeing persecution. It is only recently after the British Nationality Act 1948 that restrictions were placed on immigrants.
^^^ Incidentally, how about you finally name your country of origin and we closely examine its history? All I see is a lot of clucking and judging of others and it's almost all historical, not current (except for some bus incidents of questionable value).
The minimum wage in Australia is $15 an hour, yet a Big Mac costs the same as in the US.
How does that work out?
And it's that 15$ throughout Australia right? Level playing field. You can't seriously be arguing a company would willingly accept an overhead cost disadvantage versus a competitor right? And THAT was my original, and continuing, point. One of the components to companies resistance to unionization is the perceived burden of a rise in the overhead versus non-union competitors. The verysame reason government pollution regulations are necessary since companies are similarly reluctant to accept the extra overhead costs of waste treatment etc. versus externalizing the cost by just dumping the hazardous material into a nearby stream or landfill.
And it's that 15$ throughout Australia right? Level playing field. You can't seriously be arguing a company would willingly accept an overhead cost disadvantage versus a competitor right? And THAT was my original, and continuing, point. One of the components to companies resistance to unionization is the perceived burden of a rise in the overhead versus non-union competitors. The verysame reason government pollution regulations are necessary since companies are similarly reluctant to accept the extra overhead costs of waste treatment etc. versus externalizing the cost by just dumping the hazardous material into a nearby stream or landfill.
Odd how companies willingly accept the overhead cost disadvantage of horrendously expensive executives and the perks they give themselves.
Comments
… If it's human rights you care about there are countries with far worse records you could be criticizing.
What makes you think I don't criticise other countries and in much harsher terms? But this is not their bus drivers trying to unionise.
Is there ever a time you can contradict anything American? Or any momentary halt in the flood of self-praise is a sign it might all collapse?
The more people in prison, the better; it's a sign of a strong, good civilization.
The police only catch a fraction of the criminals, so in an ideal world, there would be far more prisons to keep the scum of society off the streets.
USA
Feel free to counter anything I have said if I am wrong or made errors. But don't give me the usual ad hominems.
Well, I don't think it's valid for you to criticize the USA for racism. I mean, racism is an individual decision so it just doesn't make sense to criticize a nation for it. Unless of course the national government is deliberately running a racial superiority agenda, but I don't see that here.
And saying "There are X million people in prison, isn't that bad," also doesn't make sense. It could be good or bad, depending on whether the laws they were convicted under were just and their trials were fair. For this argument to make sense it would have to be "There are X million people in prison under law Y, and this law is unjust because Z." But just quoting the number without context doesn't really mean anything.
And saying "X number of people hold anti-scientific views" leaves open the question of "What particular anti-scientific views?" Because if someone wants to believe in a new-agey Yoga Chi-energy thing, but they're not hurting anybody, that's ok. Or if it's Christians who follow Jesus' example of peaceful preaching, and they come to your door wanting to discuss the bible, just say "Sorry, I don't believe in it," no big deal. It's only a problem if those anti-scientific views are also violent, but most of those seem to originate outside of the US.
First the USA would not need the complex laws and regulations that require minimisation of discrimination, if there was no racism to counter in the first place.
Second I only had to watch people's seating choices in the subways, if you are black you are last to get a non-black neighbour.
Then there is the history. Despite the declaration "That all men are created equal" the USA endorsed slavery until January 1 1863 and it took a war to finally cease the practice of slavery in name, but not end the racism that made it possible. Racism that was held to be biblically justified. By devious methods black Americans were held in virtual slavery for almost another hundred years after their supposed emancipation. People are still being killed due to that racism and the perpetrators were getting protection from the law right into the 1970's. Even more recently if you count the George Zimmerman case and others.
It isn't just African Americans who suffered, non-Europeans of all descriptions were also targeted. Chinese particularly were frequently attacked and murdered in the Mid West after being recruited in large numbers to build the railways as coolies, a form of indentured slavery. The discrimination was official, the Chinese Exclusion Act was only repealed in 1943, two years after China became an ally of the USA in WWII.
We hardly need go into detail over the treatment of the native Americans.
Despite fighting for their country black Americans were segregated and discriminated against in the armed services and after WWII barely received any of the benefits of the GI bill that set up many white soldiers for the post war affluence.
Latin Americans, despite being part of the USA for many generations after the USA conquered the west and south west, were still being deported to Mexico in the 1930's. Los Angeles County alone deported 12,000 in the early 1930's. Those remaining were forced by job discrimination to work for below poverty wages. Something that is still happening widely in agriculture in Florida, where modern slavery is still practiced.
Discrimination and its associated poverty leads to non-white citizens crossing the law more often. An unchecked police force means that non-white Americans are systematically searched and apprehended at a far greater rate than white Americans. That leads to more incarcerations, legitimate or not.
The USA has according to the ICPS 2,228,424 people in prison, the highest number and rate in the world.
The next highest number of incarcerated is in China, a communist dictatorship, a mere 1,701,344 despite a population 4 times as large.
Quite an achievement!
The proportion of people of color being imprisoned is startling. 1 in 15 African Americans and 1 in 36 Hispanic. Only 1 in 106 white men goes to prison. An amazing 1 in 3 black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. The reasons for this are systemic and outlined in the link.
Recent events show that the police still shoot black people almost with impunity, and conservative Republicans have been emboldened by their gerrymandered success in Congress and the Senate, to being a bit more open about the beliefs they hold close to their hearts. Black electorates still get discriminatory handling at elections even today, and if the conservative High Court gets its way the last legal barriers to prevent this will be stripped away.
How does this affect the bus drivers? Have a look who they are, and how they are vilified when they seek to organise themselves.
^^^ Are you aware of the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923? Not a U.S. law and quite discriminatory. I guess that means Canada is off the list of approved countries now.
I see you changed it from:
"^^^ The Chinese Exclusion Act was written and implemented in Canada, not the US."
Wrong. But it seems you finally checked. Now you are getting the hang of it maybe you can further your education.
Naturalization Act Federal USA 1795 Restricted naturalisation of residents to "free white persons" of "good moral character".
Chinese Exclusion Act Federal USA law 1882 prohibited all immigration of Chinese labourers and placed them in the same category as imbeciles and the syphilitic insane.
Chinese Immigration Act Canadian law 1885 put a tax on Chinese entry to Canada of $50.
California Alien Land Law of 1913 State prevented Asians from owning land and in 1923 lead to a Supreme Court ruling that Indians were non-white and stripped them of their land titles.
Immigration Act of 1917 (aka Asiatic Barred Zone Act) Federal USA law 1917 banned all Asians and Pacific Islanders.
Chinese Immigration Act Canadian law 1923 banned Chinese immigration.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 finally abolished racial restrictions on immigration and naturalisation.
This lead me to investigate what was the procedure with Britain, which had a complex set of colonies and dominions. Near as I can make out if you were born in Britain you were British and if you were from the colonies you had free entry as a British subject, which included Americans prior to 1770, without qualification to race or color. This explains the diversity and multi-cultural character of Britain, particularly as a refuge for those fleeing persecution. It is only recently after the British Nationality Act 1948 that restrictions were placed on immigrants.
"A lot of clucking and judging of others" (bit of a euphemism of what was said here) trying to join a Union, which is guaranteed in your constitution?
Something happening right now, and the subject of this Forum post?
You know I am Russian.
Go for it.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
You're trying to avoid having your own country examined critically. Why?
The minimum wage in Australia is $15 an hour, yet a Big Mac costs the same as in the US.
How does that work out?
And it's that 15$ throughout Australia right? Level playing field. You can't seriously be arguing a company would willingly accept an overhead cost disadvantage versus a competitor right? And THAT was my original, and continuing, point. One of the components to companies resistance to unionization is the perceived burden of a rise in the overhead versus non-union competitors. The verysame reason government pollution regulations are necessary since companies are similarly reluctant to accept the extra overhead costs of waste treatment etc. versus externalizing the cost by just dumping the hazardous material into a nearby stream or landfill.
Because I love to watch you squirm.
Because I wouldn't want to help you on that research as well as I have had to with everything else.
And because I wouldn't want to add it to "The Axis of Evil" for saying things you don't want to hear.
You might take our national dish off the Macdonald's menu!
I see. You're afraid of criticism, but you love to dish it out. Message received.
No, I simply know you.
As apparently do others here.
They sell vodka in McDonald’s? I gotta start going back.
Physician, heal thyself.
Somebody, I won't say who, was criticising the sugar content… so they substituted.
Finally a Happy Meal that actually, genuinely lives up to its name!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Physician, heal thyself.
I'll throw you a bone.
It's the other country where a bunch of bus drivers trying to join a Union is causing a ruckus.
And it's that 15$ throughout Australia right? Level playing field. You can't seriously be arguing a company would willingly accept an overhead cost disadvantage versus a competitor right? And THAT was my original, and continuing, point. One of the components to companies resistance to unionization is the perceived burden of a rise in the overhead versus non-union competitors. The verysame reason government pollution regulations are necessary since companies are similarly reluctant to accept the extra overhead costs of waste treatment etc. versus externalizing the cost by just dumping the hazardous material into a nearby stream or landfill.
Odd how companies willingly accept the overhead cost disadvantage of horrendously expensive executives and the perks they give themselves.
What's even more odd is how many people willing accept it.