The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Wild Card => Topic started by: arkabee on November 24, 2004, 10:43:39 pm
-
this one has been mulling/simmering in the back of my head for some time.
someone runs a stop sign (saw on the way back from lunch today), because they are in a hurry. they don't respect other drivers, do they?
someone leaves an empty bottle of jack daniels (it was about a year ago, i think it was jack, coulda been evan williams) sitting on the white line of the turning lane at a stop light. not much respect there for others, or am i wrong?
so i step outside for a cigarette (i don't really respect myself much), and i find myself staring at the man at the end of the parking lot. why is he standing next to the building? why is he facing the building? what is he, no, nononono, he _can't_ be. why is this man peeing on the building?
at least he was respectful enough, as he zipped and turned to go into his car, to shout:
"sorry, i really had to go!!"
-
incidentally, i would never state that i have not peed in public, however:
not at 2:00 PM
the day before thanksgiving
adjacent to a public street
IN SIGHT OF THE BANK TELLER LADIES IN THE BANK DRIVETHRU!
i asked the people in the front of the building, whether he'd come in to the building and asked to use the bathroom and been turned down. nope.
-
Amen.
I started two or three screeds and decided to walk away as well.
Over the past few days I've heard Ron Artest talk about getting 'disrespected'. I wish I could tell him in person that playing a playground game for millions dollars does not inspire respect from me or any other rational person. And certainly bad behavior doesn't either (and that guy in the white cap is a complete asshole complete with multiple felonies).
I too have been quizzically regarded when I tell people my respect is earned. I think that deep down, these sort of people don't respect anything - not themselves, not their parents, nothing.
We have a large segment of the population that are basically nihilists and I think that's a huge problem because nihilists and people with respect and values can't really occupy the same place at the same time, can't really work together to accomplish anything.
I think that an awful lot of what makes a person's personality and defines their ability to respond appropriately to physical or cognitive stimulus is values. If they don't believe in anything outside of themselves, if they have no ability to do anything that doesn't benefit them directly, they become very indifferent, selgiraffe and revert to something approximating the "natural state" as those old-time philosophers would say - where each individual competes with every other individual for everything.
It's gonna be tough sledding as a culture if a significant number of people slip down into that kind of belief system.
This is why I think a truly secular society is so dangerous. It eliminates too much of what makes a community work including some basic, common values. Not rules, but values.
-
Over the past few days I've heard Ron Artest talk about getting 'disrespected'.
Why is he still employed?
-
Even better question than that, to me, is in response to his lawyer or agent or something, talking about how he's "a kid" and just wants to "do his job".
When did playing a game become a "job"? No athlete has a 'job' in my opinion, they are privileged to make money (way too much money) playing a game.
-
THE BANK DRIVETHRU!
Really? They exist?
Do you have drivethru laundrettes and shit too?
Wow.
-
When did playing a game become a "job"? No athlete has a 'job' in my opinion, they are privileged to make money (way too much money) playing a game.
Which brings up the larger question; does any entertainer have a job? Pro athletes aren't really that different than actors or muscians in terms of what they do for society.
-
This is why I think a truly secular society is so dangerous. It eliminates too much of what makes a community work including some basic, common values. Not rules, but values.
I don't want to start an argument on this really, but I want to stand up for those of us who are godless but still have values. I would bet that you and I agree on most questions of how people should behave towards one another, despite my inability to believe in any higher power. And you know what else, I'll bet you'd still behave honorably in your life if you were somehow presented with absolute proof of the nonexistence of God.
-
We should have a private conversation about that some time. I think the proof is around me constantly. What you would call a 'statistical anomaly' I would still call a miracle.
The values that we agree on are likely to be many of the same values that the three major faiths of todays world, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all more-or-less agree on (and many other faiths, too). In talking about community building and maintaining a civil society, I guess it doesn't matter where those values come from if one is clinically and non-spiritually analyzing how communities/societies work and why sometimes they don't...although I am interested in hearing from secular humanists about where their values come from, how they came to hold them, and what keeps them holding them.
-
This is why I think a truly secular society is so dangerous. It eliminates too much of what makes a community work including some basic, common values. Not rules, but values.
While I don't agree with your sentiment, I don't think the US, at least, is in danger of becoming a truly secular society. We are probably the most religious we have ever been. As far as respect goes, does anyone know how more secular societies in Europe are fairing compared to the US?
Interesting, though, that some say the US supported Saddam Hussein earlier on specifially because he was seen as secular.
-
Secular != amoral.
Religious != moral.
-
To me it's not about having 'no values'. It's more about having a broad cross section of the population sharing somewhat common values or a fairly tolerant population; I think in America we have a combination of these.
In Europe they are approaching a flash point between the immigrant Muslim population and the centuries-settled european culture in each area. The Europeans (at least the governments of Holland and Germany) have publicly appealed to immigrants (and specifically Muslim immigrants) to more fully "integrate" into their society - I think this could be taken as an affront to their faith - so this could cause even more problems. The core values of the immigrant and established populations are so disparate that it will require either rapid integration into the economic and political system (near the top end of both) or an atmosphere of tolerance which doesn't seem to be improving right now.
-
The question of whether respect is increasing or decreasing or not is a tough one.
In Canada I see action toward an increase in respect of the individual - there’s a growing tolerance towards diversity and a broadening of laws to allow, more and more, for one to live one’s life as one chooses so long as it does no harm to others. So I think, things are going good. But then, I look at how polarized the world has become, especially toward American policy, and I get worried. After all, the big news story in the paper today is about how while Bush is visiting Canada he will not appear in front of our parliament. He is doing this to prevent being booed by our politicians (he was booed when he appeared in Australian parliament, and the decision to not appear in our parliament was made, apparently, “to avoid embarrassment.” When the world’s largest superpower no longer holds the respect of its allies, its government should feel embarrassed.
Then I look at the way children are marketed to now, and I get really scared. Since the dawn of the tween market and the media machine around Britney and Christina and all the clones, there has been this alarming trend of sexualizing little girls in a way that I find highly disturbing. Low-rise jeans and bra tops should not be made in sizes for eight year olds, and more alarmingly, there should simply not be a market for them. But they are, and there is. Then I think, a society that has no respect for childhood is inherently sick, and is set on self-destruct mode.
I feel that at this point in history, as a society we are flailing, that we are at a low level when it comes to respecting each others’ humanity. Yet, when I step back, I have to recognize how, pardon the French, it’s the same shit on a different day. I often worry that our society is headed towards a distopian future. Then, sometimes (though less often) I hope we’re headed toward utopia. In the end, when I look at history (as I have been a lot lately – I’m working on a piece that spans over more than 50 years) every violent swing towards bad is tempered by a swing to the good and an eventual middling out.
-
Do you think perhaps that Australians should be embarassed that their respected, elected politicians lack the self-control to respect, if nothing else, the office of the President of the United States regardless of their opinion of the man in it? We have significant ties to Australia economically and militarily and the same goes for Canada. Maybe there is some room for embarassment on the part of people who can't be trusted to act like adults in a forum as important as the seat of government.
-
Considering the direct way that Bush's White House has negatively effected Canada in the past four years (banning beef, tariffs on wheat, refusing free trade of lumber), never mind the constant interference and overstepping of his government in to Canadian pollicies (attempting to strong arm Canadian govt into the war in Iraq in spite of the clear lack of support by our population at large, attempting to prevent gay marriages, threatening border closures every time our policy doesn't exactly match his), it's fare to say the majority of Canadians would expect our politicians to voice their anger and distaste. Given no other means to voice grievances, as was the case with the “booing” parties in Australian parliament, I should hope our politicians would at least boo. There has been several years of polite pleas for diplomacy from Canadian govt. falling on deaf ears -silence equals acceptance.
As for embarrassment for "lack the self-control" - Bush has severely botched his relationship with Canada. If I had a neighbor treated me the way he’s treated Canadians, I'd let that neighbor know he wasn't welcome if he came walking into my house. That's how parliamentary debating goes down - it's how it functions. Booing, clattering of hands on tables, clapping in approval are all common sounds in parliament - it is not a passive institution. I don't understand why Bush, who at the very least is a bad neighbor and at the very worst has essentially leveled years of diplomacy between our countries, has earned some special place of respect outside of how our government usually functions. I don't think the "Office of President" merits any respect on title alone, but I come from a country where our last primeminister got pied in the face, and the majority of our country found it humourus, so perhaps there's a cultural difference? You mentioned earlier that people have to earn your respect, so why shouldn't this apply to Bush? He hasn't earned the respect of the Canadian people or the Canadian government, and in fact his actions toward our country have been extremely disrespectful and in some cases destructive. You get what you give.
-
3rd attempt at a rational post. I'm not Anti-Canadian.
It's true that respect is earned; it is also true that debate is carried out in a different manner in a parliament than in our Congress.
Also true, though, is the right of a sovereign nation to create polices that are in the best interest of the nation and people. It sounds like you want us to make laws and policies to protect Canada. Sorry, but that is your parliament's job.
I sometimes think that, mostly, there is a lot of jealousy and frustration because the US is so economically and otherwise powerful that other nations "affected by our laws and policies" are forced to follow along. Would you say that the US has a responsibility to prop up your agriculture industry? Or get Canadian permission to wage a war? Or create "Canada Friendly" policies? Why would we act in other than rational self-interest?
Canada's government can act in the same ways; create trade barriers; enact policies that affect the US; act in rational self-interest at the expense of the US. Why doesn't it?
-
It would be nice if 'rational self-interest' could be somewhat tempered with 'not screwing the next guy'.
-
If I met Bush it would take all my self-restraint for booing to be the worst thing I did. Ditto Guillani (sp?)
And seeing as something like 73% of non-US citizens oppose Bush then it's in their parliaments best interest to reflect those views by booing.
Since Canada's a member of UN then yes, we kind of do need their permission to wage war. Which we aren't even doing. But hey, since it's not officially a war at least they can't start a draft.
-
But it can't. It's really hard to boil either politics or economics down to a positive sum game. The best you can hope for is to break even but that doesn't serve rational self interest, either.
I don't think any policies are created with the purpose of sticking it to someone in another country, anyhow. I don't see why we would put foreign farmers or manufacturers ahead of our own farmers or manufacturers when creating trade policy - that doesn't make any sense. We don't owe a foreign farmer or manufacturer anything; our taxpaying businesses benefit from our government's policy. That is what governments do.
-
If we're a "Christian Country" as some folks would have us believe, shouldn't we love our neighbors as ourselves? Or does being a "Christian Country" only mean we condemn people who make us feel uncomfortable?
-
Heyyyy, just a little reminder that we all need to stay off the beach.
STAY OFF THE BEACH!
-
If we're a "Christian Country" as some folks would have us believe, shouldn't we love our neighbors as ourselves? Or does being a "Christian Country" only mean we condemn people who make us feel uncomfortable?
As I wrote that last post, I was thinking about that. I think that we are not so much a "Religious Country" as we are a "Country of Religious People"; that is our individual and small group actions are guided by our inner compass, the majority of which are based on similar concepts in the 3 major faiths of the Common Era ("people of the book" as it says in the Koran). So we take care of the poor among us; we "render unto Caesar" and we "render unto God". As individuals.
When we elect representatives and a President, the question changes significantly. As representatives of vastly more people; and ultimately as the nominal leader of the Nation, the question becomes taking care of everyone in aggregate. That's where rational self-interest comes into play; stewardship of the vast resources, tax dollars, heritage and future of the country are paramount responsibilities. These are responsibilities of leaders everywhere. One expects that the leaders of each nation have the ability to create legislation and policy to take care of their people unless their country is under extraordinary circumstances like civil war or natural disaster.
I think that the values you ask about are expressed in the vast amounts in international aid, directly and through NGOs that the US and the people of the US fund through taxation and charitable donation. The US still leads the world in this kind of giving.
It seems to me that the question here is whether the US has a responsibility to ensure that workers/industries in other nations with whom we trade are prosperous. The big issue seems to be economic disparity; it's got to be very challenging to manage that question when you deal with established, stable economies with high standards of living (like Canada, or Western Europe) at the same time you deal with newer economies with different standards (India or Thailand). I still believe that there is a lot of responsibility on the part of the other nations' trade negotiators and policy setters but think on the part of the poorest nations, maybe we <do> have some responsibility in terms of ensuring they aren't being exploited. We don't, though, have the responsibility for growing anyone's economy and for prosperous, well established economies the onus is entirely on their government to provide policies and negotiate well on their behalf as we do to try to protect our industries and workers.
-
3rd attempt at a rational post. I'm not Anti-Canadian.
I didn't mean to imply that you are, nor do I think that you are Anti-Canadian. Also, I hope you’re not implying I’m being irrational, as I’m speaking from a very rational place, addressing the Canadian climate as it stands and as it is reflected in any form of Canadian media you want to refer to. I've always enjoyed your unique understanding of being American, AlohaDawg – it speaks to a point of view otherwise not represented on this board. That said, I also recognize that we come from very different ends of the political spectrum. While we can enjoy a respectful discussion of whether the current US government has disrespected Canada or not, I know we'll never come to agreement, and that's fine. I still welcome you to enjoy maple syrup.
To clairify:
Also true, though, is the right of a sovereign nation to create polices that are in the best interest of the nation and people. It sounds like you want us to make laws and policies to protect Canada. Sorry, but that is your parliament's job.
No, I never mentioned anything about any need for the US to make policies to protect Canada, I was attempting to speak to the current White House and its regular attempts to impose its will upon Canadian policy. The clearest and harshest case is the attempt the US government made to force our country into the war, and the subsequent cold-shoulder when the Canadian government refused.
Would you say that the US has a responsibility to prop up your agriculture industry?
Our countries had a much healthier relationship of free flowing trade previous to the Bush administration. I seem to remember a Free Trade agreement. I seem to remember an attitude of pride and mutual respect on both sides of the border over what a healthy relationship our countries maintained. I'm not talking about "proping up" here, I'm talking about generations of both our countries happily importing and exporting goods, followed by a sudden paradigm shift that's taken an enormous toll - farmers already on ver verge now quitting farming altogether, never mind the numerous American multi-national companies that farmed in Canada now shutting down, leaving entire communities bankrupt.
Canada's government can act in the same ways; create trade barriers; enact policies that affect the US; act in rational self-interest at the expense of the US. Why doesn't it?
Well to sound like a hick - it wouldn't be neighborly, it wouldn't be respectful. And as you pointed out, the US is a superpower - my country has basically no choice but to be diplomatic - the pressure to conform to US policy is huge, yet we do still manage to maintain our own identity. But doesn't your country also have the responsibility to maintain diplomacy too? To look at Canada and say, hey this country's been in the top 5 countries for standards of living for decades and decades, and Canada supplies hydroelectric power to a large amount of the American population, and has control over the majority of North America's clean water supply -maybe this country is doing something right, and maybe we should be working to maintain a respectful relationship with this country?
This failure of diplomacy has had a drastic effect on the climate of my country. I hear things I've never heard before - I hear my peers saying they hate America, I see politicians on national TV stomping on George Bush dolls. I've never seen my country like this before, everyone is so disillusioned, so angry.
-
I guess what I don't see (obviously from this side of the border and discussion) is <how> the US can "impose it's will" on Canadian policy and policy makers without the assent of the Canadian policy makers. That's the 'bully' argument and although the size and power of the US seems to make it obvious, I don't see where the actual 'bullying' happens.
I believe that once the USA decided to take on the mission in Afghanistan and Iraq we should have made absolutely sure that we had the resources and ability to complete it absolutely alone if necessary. I will agree with you that the diplomatic climate should not have changed; Canada is a critical ally and trade partner of the US (and, for a long time, the only thing between us and the USSR) and that should be preserved. The most powerful nation has responsibility to use power judiciously and fairly - maybe we aren't being good at that but I think the current circumstances are somewhat extraordinary.
Obviously, I haven't lived in Canada or the UK so I can't speak in any way for the sentiment in those places - but hatred seems like wasted emotional energy to me. Sitting around seething is one thing but are enough Canadian policy makers of a like mind? If they are, then the policies should reflect that. Is the parliament able to create policies that speak to the values the Canadian people hold?
In mentioning rational self interest I meant to characterize the decision making process. I never intended to judge your level of rationality. It seems pretty OK to me.
I don't think there is a 'hick' aspect to neighborliness. I think the problem is that we don't look across borders and see neighbors; we look across the border and see 'foreigners'. Right now the US has a burgeoning issue in border control and see the very loosely controlled Canadian border as a threat (the Canadians are not the threat) and this also means inconvenience for people who frequently cross. This doesn't mean the movie "Canadian Bacon" is about to happen, though.
If we characterize Canada and Mexico as our neighbors than it follows logically that we characterize Americans as family. I think most people would take care of their family first and then offer things to the neighbors and I think that sort of prioritization makes sense in terms of international policy.
And I love the syrup.
For Cort:
The UN may just wind up destroying itself over the next few years. Heavy dependence on American money for it's operations and programs; scandalous disregard for human rights in the Sudan (and Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe chairing a human rights commission that includes, I believe, giants in the field like Cuba and China??) and the eventual uncovering of the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq will cause serious harm and hopefully lead to serious reforms. The UN has become, in many ways, as corrupt as many of the dictator-run governments who subscribe to it and a toothless old tiger in a new and dangerous jungle. 17 separate resolutions on Iraq yielded nothing but arrogance on the part of Saddam and continuation of the rape and murder of thousands. Even in the absence of evidence of WMD, there was so much the UN could and should have done over the years between Gulf War I (which was justified by them) and the beginning of the current war in Iraq. I agree that there should be a world body dedicated to peace, prosperity and elevating nations economically and socially but this UN, as it stands, doesn't seem to do it.
-
I guess what I don't see (obviously from this side of the border and discussion) is <how> the US can "impose it's will" on Canadian policy and policy makers without the assent of the Canadian policy makers.
Well, I just remember feelings round here when the US put it's hefty levy or ban or whatever it was (it wasn't good anyhow) on importing Canadian lumber. We all work in Canadian Studies, so we feel a certain affinity for the country. I can understand that the US wants it's farmers and lumber companies to make money instead of importing. Hell, the EU just instituted VAT on anything imported into the country (which means regardless of whether you can buy the thing in the EU or not, you must pay VAT to your government... Ugh). But it was a big hit on Canada.
It's slightly two sided, as I also rememeber Matthew Coon Come telling us about the efforts of various reservations to stop the government logging on their land.
Regardless, if I saw Bush, or any of the central faces of the current US administration, I'd heckle them. I have no respect for them as people, let alone the decisions they make and how they affect us all. But that's me.
Now, I think I'll go back to burning my effigy of John Ashcroft.
-
But it can't. It's really hard to boil either politics or economics down to a positive sum game. The best you can hope for is to break even but that doesn't serve rational self interest, either.
Well, on an individual level, I often make a sacrifice so my behavior will be less hurful for someone else, even if the behavior I am not exhibiting would be in my best interest. I work with a fellow who sees everything in terms of what is best for him, even if it ends up screwing the next guy. I just think that, if there's a middle ground in personal relationships, there might be one in giant, multinational relationships. It would be nice if there were. Perhaps, as you say, it's not really possible on a international level.
-
I guess that's why average joes with strong values don't get elected - we would explode trying to leverage the best thing for all the people involved against the best thing for the system involved. Rich guys get the job and generally, decide in favor of the system that enriched them over the people involved in the decision.
-
Word.
-
I guess I take a broader view of rational self-interest. While it can mean behaving selgiraffely, it doesn't always. All games aren't zero-sum. In many situations I can behave in my rational self-interest without needlessly harming my neighbor. To use the family/neighbor analogy from above, I don't always best protect my family by taking potshots at the neighbors house. I don't believe we are acting in our rational self-interest in the long run by pissing our neighbors off.
I think that's the crux of the difficult I have with the administration. Sure, it's their job to act in the best interest of the US. However, I think they have a painfully short-sighted view of what that best interest is and a needlessly belligerent method of acheiving it.
-
Interesting, August -
I think the problem with looking at it in a game-theory kind of way (and I started that with the Canada discussion but I think now that thinking systemically is the only way to understand it) is that there are far more than two players in the big picture - policy setting must be very complex and occasionally has got to be like pushing on a balloon. Every time you get one side pushed in some other place pops out. I'm glad I'm not involved in all of that, I'm sure it's a situation where the best solution almost never gets implemented.
-
I think the problem with looking at it in a game-theory kind of way (and I started that with the Canada discussion but I think now that thinking systemically is the only way to understand it) is that there are far more than two players in the big picture - policy setting must be very complex and occasionally has got to be like pushing on a balloon.
Basically, less like Connect Four and more like Risk?
I have basically the same problem with the Administration as August, and it really became clear to me when doing a report on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: it is clear how little the current administration cares about any other country when one considers the image foreign countries now have of America. This administration is absolutely insane about image; consider the "Mission Accomplished" banner and the flight suit. Everything is about the image.
But consider how foreign policy has been conducted. The Bush camp has never hesitated to act like every "crazy cowboy" stereotype, or hide even their most cynical priorities. Remember during the invasion, when Bush broadcast a message telling the Iraqis, first off, not to destroy oil fields? Remember when his administration awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract? Remember when, at a dinner in March, Bush made JOKES about how they couldn't find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, thus destroying his major justification for the war? This stuff is usually mentioned once in the American media and then it floats to the bottom, like Jimmy Hoffa. But this stuff is noticed elsewhere. People in other countries actually give a shit what Noam Chomsky says, and they maybe had a bit of anti-Americanism in them before all of this, too.
And sure, America will naturally look after America first, but here's the rub. Globalization, for good or for bad, has erased a lot of borders, especially in regards to finance. And that means that if we piss off an entire country, they don't have to do a boycott of American products and wait until the end of the financial quarter for us to find out their pissed. They can just drop our stocks, or downgrade our currency, or, hell, refuse to sell us oil. What did that Morgan Stanley dude say? Ahh, here we go: "To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said, America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day."
If we piss people off enough, they're not going to give us that money, and then we're suddenly in "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" territory. Two men enter, indeed.
I think that most other countries have lost respect for the United States because the United States did not, for a moment, consider how these countries see the United States; not just in Iraq, but with anything. If something we do pisses off a lot of Canadians, we'd better figure out a way to highlight where Wolverine is from in the next X-Men movie, or hire Mike Meyers for more films, or SOMETHING. We can't just be all, BOO TO YOU, CANADA! It makes things a lot more complex, but it sort of has to be done.
-
Isn't it in our rational self-interest to retain our neighbors' respect?
-
It's a delicate balance between retaining their respect on the one hand and destroying their economy and killing them on the other.