Apologies from the US to the UK

My blood pressure is fine thanks, mista h,

There is very little anger in my writing,

the big anger seems to be in the way some people choose to read it

Debs

Russ, the US government did send a delegation to the Thatcher funeral,comprising of  George Schultz and James Baker, who were Secretary's of State during Thatchers Premiership, also two delegates from the American Embassy attended,Nancy Reagan was invited but declined due to ill health.Two minutes research was all that was needed!

Originally Posted by Hook:

Russ -

you are entitled to your opinions (even when I find them misguided or offensive) "Voltaire"

.... please don't presume to speak on behalf of any US citizens other than yourself. I suggest a more correct title for this thread would have been "Apologies from Russ to the UK".

Seconded!

Yeah, Amen to that!

Not forgetting the delightful Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Henry Kissenger.

Sister xx

And Dick managed the whole affair without shooting anyone else from the delegation. 

Hook: I recall my stance opposing efforts to demand that  civil union (which I do support, by the way) be replaced the term "marriage" for the first time in 6000 years of recorded history.  I do not quite find myself able, even with the grossest misuse of hyperbole, to equate that argument with "crucifixion"!  If that was your impression, then, as you say, we are all entitled to our opinion--and I do have to say we agree on Hi Fi!

Nor, as you once again, I am sure with the best intention, attempt to put words in my mouth, do I "deify" Reagan.  I merely stated that he, Kennedy, and FDR--(one Republican and two Democrats, I might add) were the three greatest presidents of the Twentieth Century.  Quite different even from beatification, much less elevation to Godhead!

I may be an ignorant, bigoted, vicious, redneck opponent of President Obama's policies (and therefore almost certainly a racist as well) but I don't think I have ever demonstrated on these forums, a degree of stupidity that would indicate I think that a majority--let alone all of my countrymen and women agree with my opinions.  With respect, words have different meanings in different contexts.  As to my having used the words "...from the U.S.", I was referring to my location--not claiming that all my fellow citizens agree with me.  As one president, probably more worthy of deification in most of your wiser, more considered, right-thinking judgments, once said: "...it depends on what 'is' is." 

Debs: I for one did not detect any more anger in your response than I myself feel toward politicians in general.  Even the ones I find myself supporting sometimes quite often do not live up the "ounce of spit" standard.    Now, not saying that Mrs. Thatcher was his equivalent--but just curious--what is your opinion of Winston Churchill?

Sister E: Again, with all due respect, I did not speak without doing a little research.  I am aware of most, though not all, of the persons you mentioned--as well as the fact that Obama did at least send an "official" delegation--mostly Republicans.  What I find objectionable was his not sending a single senior member of the current administration--say Joe Biden or his Secretary of State (who once distinguished himself by throwing away the medals his country had awarded him).  As I recall, when President Reagan died, not only did Lady Thatcher, as one of his friends and former political allies, attend the funeral, but PM Tony Blair and his wife, as well as Prince Charles, I assume at the direction of Her Majesty the Queen.  It is not uncommon, when a former head of state dies, for a close ally of the country which She or He once served, to send high-level, current and senior officials to represent them, without regard to whether the deceased person agreed with the opinions of that country's current head of state.  In this case, the level of officials sent were roughly equivalent to those sent to the funeral of that well-known ally of the United States Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Let me add that I appreciate and respect your opinions, whether you agree with me or not.  I do have to confess myself a litttle amazed that I find no one so far who agrees with me, but then, as I probably do not have to tell you, this won't be the first time.   But, as I have said before, I subscribe to the theory that reasonable people can differ--even very strongly--and remain friends. 

Best regards,

Russ

Russ,

The lack of any member of the current US administration can be read several ways. Either;

1. The US administration does not send to funerals of prime ministers who have been out of office for almost a quarter of century. Did it send to the funerals of James Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Harold MacMillan? Im not sure but I suspect not. Churchill most likely, but you can't compare him to Thatcher.

2. Obama had no regard for Mrs T(despite what he said)and judging by her attitude towards Mandela and the apartheid regime in South Africa it's hardly surprising.

3.The "special relationship" really isn't so special, except when the US needs our assistance.

Sister xx

 

  I do have to confess myself a litttle amazed that I find no one so far who agrees with me, but then, as I probably do not have to tell you, this won't be the first time.   

 

Russ

Russ

Only a tiny minority in the UK are truly upset at the death of Maggie, the same goes for people who are truly happy. The vast majority couldn't care one way or the other. You'd spend a very long time searching for somebody upset by the fact the USA didn't send a representative. The only people commenting on the fact are political commentators.

As far as I can see, the only reason you started this thread was to have a dig at Mr Obama. If you want people to join in with your condemnation of Mr Obama chose a subject people actually care about.

fatcat: I will start by saying that I was not merely having a gratuitous dig against President Obama.  It is absolutely true that I disagree with almost all of his policies, and consider him to be even more disingenuous than most other politicians.  Perhaps I would be more credible were I to praise him the minority of times when I agree with what he has done.  Almost without exception, my approval of his policies has to do with when he acts against his own words, such as ordering the killing enemies of the United States using drones.  Whenever I see this, divisive, miserable, shameful, war mongering greedy person that I am, I say "You, go, guy!"  I admit that I have been wrong in not praising him.  He is against the horror of water boarding our enemies and avoids the temptation to do so, by simply blowing them up! 

Now, having delivered what will no doubt appear as another dig at Obama, I find your comments surprising, but apparently true--that folks in the UK don't much care one way or another.  In the US we seem to choose up sides in politics far more than is reasonable.  You either loved Reagan or you hated him.  Same with Bush or Obama.  So I really am surprised--but you seem to damned well be correct.  Do you think that is a difference between the American and British respective psyches?  The phenomenon certainly is similar to the situation in 1939-46, in which the man whom I consider, while again no saint, to be the most important person of the last 500 years or so, Winston Churchill, warned not just Britain, but the World, what Hitler held in store for them and for it.  No one listened--they preferred the path less likely to cause them blood, sweat, OR tears--Neville Chamberlain.  After Churchill led Britain--and indeed the United States and the World to victory over terrible evil--Britain turned him out in the next election--while interested in History, I am certainly no historian, but I do find that amazingly interesting.  Is it something in the water?  Does it come from not enough spices in the food?    Inquiring minds want to know.

What do folks in the UK care about these days?  I ask that sincerely.  I am an Anglophile of the most obsequious sort--I mean absolutely no disrespect.

Best regards,

Russ

Actually Russ, people in the UK did recognise what Churchill had contributed during WW2, but they also recognised that he and the Conservative party was not what they wanted to build a new Britain after it.

Most people wanted some form of health care and education system that would be available to all, and the party that was going to provide it was the Labour party, not the Conservatives. After the Conservatives came back into power in 1951(under Churchill) they did not reverse what Labour had done.

In spite of his effort during the Second World War , many working people never forgave Churchill for his earlier political career in which he is alleged to have played a major role in the brutal treatment of striking workers. I urge you to investigate,

Sister .

Russ

For us living in the rest of the world, there must be some sort of filter over the US because what the ROW see is Obama who is the The Eagle unable to soar because he is surrounded by Turkeys (yeah, the Republicans and all their cronies).

The ROW see Obama as a President of damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Only in the US can a President be seen as a Rock Star to the rest of the western world yet be so vilified back home.

As Ali G once said (and Lewis Hamilton, LOL), Obama must be thinking "Is it because I is black?".

Well put James.  It's not just the rest of the world, but many sensible people here in the US, as well.  Though I don't know about the black part.  Hopefully we all see beyond that.

Pres. Obama won the popular vote by something like 51.1% to 47.2%.  That margin (and then, when you see how it's distributed among the States, who singularly elect Representatives and Senators) IMHO is a good bit of why "the eagle cannot soar" to use someone else's words. 

Under our Constitutional form of government, the Executive's powers are limited. Congress is deeply divided in a way that is not truly reflected in the 51 to 47 ratio; it's much closer on a Congressional district-by-district, and State-by-State, basis.

Sister: Yes, I am aware that Sir Winston was not the Union's friend.  No doubt he would be opposed even today by the Unions in cities of the U.S. who, facing bankruptcy due to pension issues, are seeking bailouts from their friend in the White House.  I am also aware that no political figure, as I have said, is worthy to sit on the right hand of Jesus Christ.    Nor is Britain alone in consciously throwing to the wolves the warriors whom they no longer see fit for guiding them through peacetime.  And I can see some wisdom in that.  The part to ponder though is that when threats emerge, the same people who wanted a dove to guide them in times peace tend to sink into denial when the next hawk is needed.  Of course, I would suspect, (without knowing any of the folks on this thread) that there would be a tendency never to recognize any threat as worthy of being met with armed force.  Hell, I may be wrong.

joerand: I would not discourage James from speculating that the opposition to Barack Obama is largely due to racism.  Clearly, when a white man opposes what a black man does or proposes, the presumption should be that he (the white man) is a racist.  There are admittedly problems with this theory, of course, when one considers the enlightened voter (like my son) who, voted for the Eagle the first time around, then changed into a racist and voted for one of the turkeys in the second election.   Yet, we discover that he was not the only tolerant Dr. Jekyll to be transformed mysteriously into Mister Hyde.  One must consider that whereas in 2008, 69 million Americans voted for Obama, in the 2012 election, only 61 million did so.  A staggering 8 million people drank the magic potion and were transformed into racists (as yours truly clearly was from the beginning) in a scant four years!  Even more puzzling is the fact that millions of voters in the last election were both paragons of virtue and bigoted raving racists at the same time!  Otherwise, how could one explain that the same electorate who showed no sign of racism, voted the President back into office with a majority in the Senate--yet at the same time, with every single seat in the House of Representatives open, returned a racist majority in that chamber to oppose Obama, the Eagle and statesman?  The mind boggles:

James L: It is well known that the United States is schizophrenic: We do the right thing in electing a socialist rock star then have the unmitigated gall to disagree with him in any way.  Perhaps the next time the ROW needs a super power to come to its aid, Mick Jagger will be available to help you. At that time, I wish you the best of luck and for now...

...best regards,

Russ

Russ,

You shouldn't be surprised that you're not finding a lot of kindred souls on a discussion board that is mostly used by Europeans.

As James quite rightly says, most of the the rest of the world is quite mistified at the vitriol which charaterises present day US politics.  From our standpoint the differencences between the ideological positions of the Republican and Democratic parties seem vanishingly small, certainly compared to what is on offer in just about any other country in the OECD.  Given how small these ideological differences are, we might expect the debate to be more civilized and nuanced.

It is safe to say that in any European country Mr. Obama would be correctly placed on the right of centre in the political spectrum and to anybody outside the USA the characterisation of your president as a socialist is laughable.  His very modest efforts on health care reform for example, are pretty thin gruel when compared to the health care systems in place in virtualy every other western democracy.  But instead the debate is framed in apocaliptic terms full of fear and loathing.

I'm sure your country is not going down the tubes as you fear.  It survived the last US president that ran up the biggest deficits in US history.  You remember him, his name was ....Ronald Reagan.

American politics and the power of PACs.  Polls I've heard show 80-90% of the US supports a modest upgrade to firearms background searches, yet fear of re-election retribution fueled by the NRA prevents our representatives from approving such legislation.  If put to a popular vote it would pass by a landslide and probably in a much stricter form. But I digress. Just venting.

Digger: At last a breath of fresh air--many points on which we are in lock step agreement--at least in terms of what is, if not in terms of what ought to be!  Actually, I am not all that surprised--but you must remember that most of my impressions of the average "European" is based more on stereotype than on real information--such as having lived in Europe, having related to the media there on a daily basis--that sort of thing.  So I am hesitant to base my judgments on stereotypes--even my own. 

You and James are correct that there is much vitriol on both sides--and I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this was true to at least some extent in Europe as well.  (In Asia and Latin America, I occasionally see footage of actual battles in the aisles of the assemblies, but no doubt that is not an everyday occurrence.)  I am not proud of that phenomenon in my own country, and I suspect that much of it is fueled--OK, not fueled, but oxygenate--by 24 hour news coverage among so many competing TV outlets.  Most of the U.S. media is rock solid in the President's lap and even those who do not oppose him on CNN, MSNBC, and the major old-style networks, would be hesitant to oppose him because of (1) his popularity and (2) his ethnic origins.  On the other side of the aisle you have only Fox News and Radio talk shows which clearly lean quite far to the right.  What Fox loses in terms of support from other media, it gains in being the most popular of all of what is now called "news" in the U.S.  If there is any true journalism left in this land, I think it is perhaps in weather reporting--so long as global warming, climate change, drastic weather shifts are not involved. 

And yes, the differences are not as great as the bombast would have one believe--but they are there.  Bush spent far more than I would have liked--but not just on the wars--on other things as well.  Obama doubled down on him.  Reagan ran deficits at times and Clinton balanced the budget (after being dragged kicking and screaming into fiscal responsibility by Newt Gingrich.)  But let's face it--there are differences.  I oppose most of what the far right stands for in the so-called "social issue" arena.  I support a woman's right to abort--so long as she can bloody well make up her mind by the end of the first trimester--that is where I personally draw the line.)  I support the rights of gays and lesbians to live together and do whatever they want with each other without intimidation.  I support their right to have many of the same protections that married people do in legal terms.  I do not support their insistence that society call it "marriage". That is all.  I will fight them every step of the way on the issue of teaching creationism in science classes or demanding that public schools engage in public prayer.

That having been said, I believe the issues of overspending and being underwhelming in our response to terrorist threats posed by some of the world population who hate us--even to the extent of being reluctant to call it for what it is--"terrorism"--is far more important right now than any of the other issues.  I am not saying that I will agree with any military action whatsoever, but I do feel that Obama has a strong tendency to move toward socialistic, huge government and to cut back on defense and our response to our (and whether you believe it or not, your) enemies.   Now I know that socialism is not the bugaboo in Europe that it is (or once was), in the U.S and I know also that defense is not that big a deal (since for all intents and purposes, Europeans have no armies--they haven't needed any ).  But when you state or imply that health care is way behind in the U.S., the only truth to your argument is government run health care.  I worked for the United States government for over forty years--and believe me, you don't want them administering your health care!  Finally, to the general implication that Europe is so much more enlightened economically than the United States, I leave you to look at the economies of socialist countries in Europe--and don't tell me--just analyze it for yourself--where will the money come from?

Soon, you will be joined by the United States.  No, we will not crumble, but we are on the verge of fading very badly.

Best regards,

Russ

Joe,

While I myself would support somewhat more stringent background checks, I ask you to consider two questions: first, do you really think in your heart of hearts, it would do much good--beyond allowing politicians to say they had made real progress--when they hadn't--against violence, and to create a false warm fuzzy feeling among the still-vulnerable populace?  And second, do you really think that moderately increased background checks is really all the Obama administration wants?

Best regards,

Russ

Question 1 - it's a step in the right direction, has to start somewhere.

Question 2 - I certainly hope not.  And not just for the sake of the Administration but for sake of our populace. Give the people what they want!

"But when you state or imply that health care is way behind in the U.S., the only truth to your argument is government run health care.  I worked for the United States government for over forty years--and believe me, you don't want them administering your health care!"

It's funny you should say that Russ, because the truth is that the US spends WAY more money on health care than any other country in the OECD where government-run universal health care is the norm, and for that they rank near the bottom in just about every health care metric you can think of.  On the plus side, there is no shortage very wealthy insurance executives who are very good at figuring out how to deny coverage in the interests of plumping up their bottom line - but they're the good guys, right?

You might want to look at this:

http://www.sierrafoot.org/civi...hted/oecd_report.pdf

US health care is great...as long as your rich, are fortunate enough to have good insurance, or don't mind selling your house in the event of a catastrophic illness.  But running a system like that is way more expensive, and some 70,000 people die in the US every year because of inadequate or no health insurance.

Joe,  then friends can disagree.  I suppose it is human nature to hope that simply legislating against the tools used in crime will significantly reduce their use by evil people.  We already are bulging at the seams with laws forbidding criminal activity--and yet it persists.  You obviously, and with all good intent, believe that passing further laws outlawing or severely limiting the possession of firearms will succeed in curtailing their use by criminals we have otherwise been unable to stop.  In fact, what it would curtail would be possession by people already disposed to obey the laws.  As one who has never committed a violent crime, living in a society more and more disposed to violence but less and less disposed to punish and/or dispose of violent criminals--a society, in short, increasingly interested in protecting the rights of the accused over those of the victim--as one who understands that law enforcement officers will very seldom be available to answer a cry for help in timely fashion--it is important to me to be able to defend myself--and to possess the tools to do so.  I know you mean well, and I respect your views--I even see that they have a rational basis.  Having heard my rationale for my beliefs, can you say that they too might have a rational basis?

Best regards,

Russ

Digger,

Think for a minute: how many people do you know or have you actually heard about who go without health care in the United States?  You are correct of course that we throw far more money at health care than is warranted--and that lots of people get rich sucking the cream off those funds--but that will almost certainly not change under Obamacare--only some of the same thieves will benefit and a lot of new ones as well.  It is a gross exaggeration, in my opinion, to hold that only the rich get good care in this country.  It is absolutely true that the rich get the best care--which is also true anywhere else in the world.  Simply throwing money at a cause or social deficiency has never and will, in my opinion, never work--otherwise nearly fifty years after the "War on Poverty", begun by Lyndon Johnson, the number of people alleged to be living in poverty in the United States, would have been reduced--not increased. 

The bottom line is that no one--absolutely no one in the United States can be turned away from an emergency room when they need care.  Is this an efficient way to deliver care?  Of course not.  Will increasing the size of the Federal bureaucracy to enforce fifteen thousand pages of new laws and regulations improve the situation?  I won't impose my opinion--I will only invite folks to think about it.

I will add one aspect in which I think the US can definitely improve: when I was in Bayeux in 2001, I got violently ill from having eaten seafood that was desperately trying to escape from the plate , our concierge called a physician's assistant to the hotel to help.  This used to happen all the time in the US but no more.  What I would recommend we do is this: if a patient were willing to sign an ironclad waiver that they would not bring a lawsuit but were being willing to see such an individual for primary care, then I think folks would get a lot better care.  Lawyers (of which I am one, though I am trying to recover) and other parasites might not benefit, but patients certainly would.

Russ

No. Are you afraid government agents might knock on your door and ask you to submit your firearms? Gotta protect that 2nd Amendment lest the Redcoats invade!

What could be next? Denying substantive due process to women? OMG! 

Without trying to be argumentative, be careful when you use the old saw of "worst statistics"  When you really look at the data that's a bit misleading.  A lot of these statistics take into account global healthcare situations that don't fairly apply across the board.

For example the US ranks very low in neonatal mortality.  This makes the states look like they do a poor job in caring for newborns.  But the major reason here is that very premature babies, say in the 23-26 week range, would essentially be given up for dead upon birth in a lot of countries.  Thus they are counted as "stillborn" and not "moralities"  In the states these babies are often saved where they never would have a chance elsewhere.  But in the cases where the babies may succumb after treatment, they are thus counted as "mortalities"  There are other examples.   I'm not saying the healthcare here is "better" or "worse"  But there are lies, damn lies and statistics, as I think Russ or Digger once said

I generally agree with Russ.   And I feel the need to weigh in on behalf of the half of the American public who voted against this Obama guy and who find his ideological approach to everything a little embarrassing.   Lady Thatcher has been a great hero to most Americans for years.    She is a great hero of mine, along with Reagan and the recent Popes.  I am personally ashamed that the US sent nobody but a bunch of old timers.

Where Russ and I part company is in the attempt to talk politics with the non US members of this forum.  That is a no win situation, particularly for us gun-toting Red Staters.  

The whole spectrum of UK politics would fit comfortably within the US Democrat Party.  We conservative Republicans should confine our discussions to non political topics.    We love your music and your audio gear, and most of your culture.  But not the politics.  Even your Tories raise taxes!   Not here, thank God.  Join us if you like, but bring your favorites with you, because they cost a lot over here.   No VAT yet, however.  Fingers crossed.

This is my last word on this topic.   I love the Naim Forum and try to be as polite as I can be.