For all you liberals, what do you find positive about the United States? This doesn't include what you would like to find positive about the U.S., but the here and now.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
For all us liberals.
Let me ask the obvious: Are you starting this thread with the point of view that liberals view nothing, or very little, positive about the United States?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not much for the flag-waving, but elections and peaceful transfers of power made me downright rhapsodic.
It's doesn't matter if I prefer those going out or those coming in - I absolutely love that when the last congress was sworn in, the leaders switched offices and powers. I love that a quarter of my aquaintainces were thrown out of work because their bosses no longer had the key to the Senate washroom, and I love that there was a hiring frenzy because brand-new people were suddenly given keys to the nation. I love when the highway signs changed to reflect the new governor of Maryland (well, no, I don't, because I think changing the signs every few years is a monster waste of money, but I like the principle).
It isn't perfect and I know that it certainly isn't confined to the US, but I love orderly, peaceful transfers of massive power in accordance with the results of free elections.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I count myself as liberal. I really enjoy the level of plumbing and sanitation we have in this country. It is a blessing that wherever you go, safe, potable water is available, practically free, from the taps.
In other parts of the world, people are dying from lack of clean water.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
-Access to education.
-Not as backwards as some places when it comes to treating women like second class citizens. (Needs some work though.)
-I love the fact that you can think and say just about anything in this country and it's okay to do so. Regardless of the claims of both sides that the media is entirely controlled by one side or the other, in the end both sides are free to say what they want.
-Absolutely amazing nature. The landscapes are so varied. The National Parks system is a thing we should treasure.
-Diversity. Although I think this is more apparent in large cities like Chicago, New York or L.A., it is one of the coolest things about this country. You can walk down the street in my neighborhood and see someone from almost anywhere in the world.
I know I have more, but those are all I can think of at the moment. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I find the presumption behind this thread generally obnoxious.
EDITED to more accurately reflect my feelings.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I find the presumption behind this thread generally offensive.
Icarus honestly I think Occasional just needs to see that liberals do indeed have positive things they appreciate about the country.
This thread is an extension of some claims that people have taken issue with in the surge thread.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I haven't read the thread in question. I am uncomfortable with the idea that liberals need to prove their loyalty, and with the presumption that those who criticize the US must be opposed to it. Frankly, it goes against everything I find positive about the US. It seems . . . unAmerican.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I consider myself a liberal. (or at least a conservative Socialist) And, I choke and tear up whenever I sing or play The Star Spangled Banner. I love the role of government (which is literally not "they" but "us") as a guarantor of The Four Freedoms that all of us enjoy.
EDIT: OK for the younger set: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Worship; Freedom from Want; Freedom from Fear.
[ June 27, 2007, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree with Icarus. It's like asking conservatives "which minorities don't you want to oppress?" It converts a tired stereotype used to vilify political opponents into the semblance of honest discussion.
The thread that spawned this has things so far beyond the pale that there's no way I can believe Occ has any good motive here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I haven't read the thread in question. I am uncomfortable with the idea that liberals need to prove their loyalty, and with the presumption that those who criticize the US must be opposed to it. Frankly, it goes against everything I find positive about the US. It seems . . . unAmerican.
Well you certainly don't have to PROVE your loyalty to Occasional. But it certainly harms nothing if you find a few moments to say what you like about the country. I just wanted to help clarify why this thread exists. Occasional said that liberals are anti-American and several hatrackers said that is untrue. This thread suddenly appeared so here is a chance to show Occasional he is wrong about liberals in the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: For all you liberals, what do you find positive about the United States? This doesn't include what you would like to find positive about the U.S., but the here and now.
Is your last name McCarthy in real life?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But it certainly harms nothing if you find a few moments to say what you like about the country.
When Occ has essentially declared that until someone proves their loyalty by saying something good about America he will lump them in with people who want China to invade us, I think it does do harm to indulge this destructive form of discourse.
Great, I'm probably going to be called a liberal now.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think we have a fantastic set of ideals and principles embodied in our constitution and expressed in other documents like the Declaration of Independence.
On a related note: freedom of speech. Hot damn.
I think we're an amazingly hardworking nation.
I love that I can live here as an atheist, openly, and not be beheaded for it just as openly.
I think that, however much we squabble and bicker, if we are ever seriously threatened, we will come together to collectively wreck the offender's s**t.
I'm more or less firmly convinced that this country can innovate it's way out of damn near anything.
I think we've come together as a diverse group as well as anyone could given the circumstances. Nobody two hundred years ago could have imagined the kind of metropolitan country we've become, and despite the setbacks we've had and the problems we will have, I can't imagine another country doing a better job.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree with Icarus. It's like asking conservatives "which minorities don't you want to oppress?" It converts a tired stereotype used to vilify political opponents into the semblance of honest discussion.
The thread that spawned this has things so far beyond the pale that there's no way I can believe Occ has any good motive here.
I think you could only make that claim truly if Occasional starts picking apart things folks say in this thread and tells them he knows better then they do about their "true motives."
The question is, "What do you find positive about the U.S." not, "Why are you not anti American."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:This thread suddenly appeared so here is a chance to show Occasional he is wrong about liberals in the US.
I think it's pretty clear that Occasional long ago made up his mind about liberals in the US.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
-Public Education, including libraries -NLRB -NEA -Water -FDA -Parks
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:This thread suddenly appeared so here is a chance to show Occasional he is wrong about liberals in the US.
I think it's pretty clear that Occasional long ago made up his mind about liberals in the US.
Perhaps, I can't say either way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think you could only make that claim truly if Occasional starts picking apart things folks say in this thread and tells them he knows better then they do about their "true motives."
He's already done that - repeatedly and extensively. This thread is his offer to allow people to prove his preconceptions wrong. It's insulting: "Prove you're worthy to be heard."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I haven't read the thread in question. I am uncomfortable with the idea that liberals need to prove their loyalty, and with the presumption that those who criticize the US must be opposed to it. Frankly, it goes against everything I find positive about the US. It seems . . . unAmerican.
Well you certainly don't have to PROVE your loyalty to Occasional. But it certainly harms nothing if you find a few moments to say what you like about the country.
Watch it with the second person. I don't actually consider myself liberal. Or conservative.
The "if you have nothing to hide . . . " line of reasoning sounds suspiciously like the sort of things police officers often say before they conduct illegal searches.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I am a liberal on social issues but a conservative elsewhere, and especially on Fiscal policy (which leads to interesting conflicts.)
Either way, I love the heroic nature of our society, the glorious parts of our history, and the idealism that underlies our government. Hey, just today I listened to Schoolhouse Rock - The Preamble many times to try to memorize the preamble to our constitution.
And I kept tearing up!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I think you could only make that claim truly if Occasional starts picking apart things folks say in this thread and tells them he knows better then they do about their "true motives."
He's already done that - repeatedly and extensively. This thread is his offer to allow people to prove his preconceptions wrong. It's insulting: "Prove you're worthy to be heard."
Well I have no evidence to the contrary, if that is the case then you are probably right.
edit: Icarus: Sorry, didn't mean to label you as a liberal! I personally do not know how liberal ones views have to be before they find themselves lumped together in that particular group which is why I have not said anything positive about the U.S. in this thread. My parents were positively baffled when I voted Democrat last election and I certainly am pretty conservative when it comes to many issues.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I participated in this thread because it was an excuse to do something I rarely get to do. It's not a topic that comes up often. I have a problem solver's mentality, so that's where most of my intention goes, and it's refreshing to reflect on the positives.
FWIW.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I love that I can repeatedly, vociferously speak as I wish in the public domain without worrying about retribution by the local Party Memebers.
I love that I am allowed to have a vested interest in the way the nation's government works, to the point that I feel obligated to point out mistakes or problems in the way it is currently run. A tangent on this is that I feel like my speech CAN cause change to occur.
I love that we have all sorts here, and that this increases over time, rather than decreases. E Pluribus Unum works on many levels.
I love that we have no official language.
I love that you are a citizen by simple virtue of being born here.
I love that we have a military tradition that is generally respected, both here and abroad. Also that those who don't love any sort of military tradition are just as much citizens.
I love that we can have different states with differing laws on things, and still be one nation.
-Bok
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
We can criticise our politicians without getting excuted. We don't have to deal with internet censorship the way other countries do. You can totally lampoom officials on television without worrying about being dragged away at night. The freedom to start your own zine or blog, or to have your own access television show, or some sort of random thing on youtube where you get to voice your opinions. It's important to allow for reasonable discourse and descent, it makes the country a bit better each decade. No more slavery or Jim Crow, that sucked. I don't think the government can ban books or movies. That's a great thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it might be helpful to learn what you find positive about America, Occasional. It doesn't seem to be our freedom or speech or our civil liberties. Those things that I love about America are the things you seem to want to limit.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
As a non-American with two married children living there, one American son-in-law, 5 American grandkids:
-THE PEOPLE -the history -the whole founding ethic -the vastness and beauty of the country -the VARIETY of cultures within it (I'm talking regional cultures) -the food -the vague, larger than life, impossible to define, ethos of AMERICA. I guess the ideal it was founded under and which still characterises so much of what America is -the distinctly idiosyncratic, evocative American version of the English language -and (again,) the people
I love the place, and would move there in a minute if I was 10 years younger.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Also, we have so many different cultures here. America is this great mashing of different cultures, different languages, all sorts of awesome food. You can eat Italian food, sushi, typical american fare, heck, even Turkish food. In NY or Boston you can go from America to a pocket of China. You also get a lot of mountains, deserts, two oceans, a bunch of rivers, national parks, tons of different animals, parks and Disney places. Then there's all the bands that came from here, the music we've influenced over the years, the way so many things started here first or were perfected and improved here... Also, a lot of religions started here too. Lots of branches of Christianity, like Mormonism, SDA, Baptist. Plus how many foods were invented here? Ice cream cones, Chocolate Chip Cookies. We rock.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
American desserts are the richest. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Man, how could I forget the music. No America = no jazz, no blues...
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
For whatever reason Occasional started this thread, I'm glad it's here. A member of my family is, in my opinion, a rabid conservative. (I'm just somewhere in the middle, leaning one way and then the other depending on the particular topic.) He sees NO good among liberals. We have arguments a lot about this, with me trying to help him see that liberals are NOT bad people. I appreciate reading what people who consider themselves to be liberals have to say. It gives me things I can say in rebuttal to some of his comments. So, I hope that those among you who are not offended by the whole idea of this thread will please continue to post your thoughts. ~Sala
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
As a conservative, I'd like to add that I like talking to liberals about stuff. My friends and I got talking about the news story where Home Depot is trying to get local legislation revoked that makes them provide shelter and bathrooms for day laborers who hang out in their parking lots. I assumed HD didn't want them there (since I wouldn't) and the local govs were just passing the buck on who should provide services.
My liberal buddy pointed out that HD lets folks hang out in the parking lot to attract contractors, so why shouldn't they have to provide for them? I'd never thought about it that way. It's nice to get another view point that helps you see the world a little more fully, or at least understand how the other side sees it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, a balance between liberals and conservatives is what makes this country better... You get the traditions, valuing family, then you get the freedom to allow for a shift... Without liberals, or at least people who were willing to question the norms, would this country be as good as it is now? Slavery comes to mind, and there were some great Christians that fought against that, as well as fighting for civil rights for everyone, not to mention that feminism is completely a bad thing except for the feminists that annoy me.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I don't like anything about the U.S., because I'm a mean ol' liberal that hates God, Apple Pie, and the American Way. And I secretly punch kittens.
It's true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Christian does not equal conservative.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I realize I'm not a liberal, but I just wanted to state a few things I love about this country.
I love the fact that what we argue about, liberal, conservative or other, is MINOR in the grand scheme of things. We, for the most part, agree that being a constitutional democratic republic is a Good thing. We agree that free speech is a Good thing. We agree that equality is a Good thing. We maybe put the limits in different places, but the argument is about where to draw the line, not whether the concept is Good.
I also love that I can be an uppity, atheist, bisexual, woman without being put to death.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I don't like anything about the U.S., because I'm a mean ol' liberal that hates God, Apple Pie, and the American Way. And I secretly punch kittens.
It's true.
Well, except for the "secretly" part. Not anymore.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I like the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, then again I'm Canadian so I probly don't count.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Christian does not equal conservative.
Neither does: Military Service Member or retiree Television abstainer Heavy Metal music avoider (Glen Miller rocks) Short shorts and halter top questioner Flag waver Observant Mormon or Honest tax payer
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmbboots, the pioneering spirit. The can do attitude. The love of God that usually isn't extremist. A strong citizen military. Easy travel from one state to another by plane, train, automobile, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. We do have very different ideas about what is important about America. What I love are the ideals on which this country was founded. The idea that government is answerable to the people. That the leaders of the government are subject to the people. Civil liberties.
These are what I consider American.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I second everything Icarus has said in this thread.
Even the bit about desserts. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: When Occ has essentially declared that until someone proves their loyalty by saying something good about America he will lump them in with people who want China to invade us, I think it does do harm to indulge this destructive form of discourse. ...
It seems even more non-nonsensical for citizens of other countries. Does an Englishman need to demonstrate their loyalty the US before they are "worthy of being heard"?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I just took it as a chance to say why I like America ... Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Mucus, no they don't. However, they aren't living in the United States. If they didn't have anything good to say about the places they live I would wonder about why they still live there or when they will start a revolution.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, no they don't. However, they aren't living in the United States. If they didn't have anything good to say about the places they live I would wonder about why they still live there or when they will start a revolution.
Ah, you've reminded me of something that I do truly love about this country.
The fact that we, as a society, can change. So we don't need to have a revolution, we just need to wait for change to happen(and help it along by voting for people we hope to change things, of course).
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Mucus, no they don't. However, they aren't living in the United States. If they didn't have anything good to say about the places they live I would wonder about why they still live there or when they will start a revolution.
I think they will start a revolution tomorrow. Quick, man the wilderbeast! Get the boxen open! We have potential insurrection. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Occasional: Leaving aside revolution, I suspect that one's opinion about their own country is often roughly correlated with one's ability to leave that country.
However, to clarify your question for an international audiences, when it was directed towards liberals, did you mean liberals when judged through the perspective of the US, or liberals when judged through by their respective countries? Or were only American liberals singled out for special treatment?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing I like best about America: the deeply-held belief that two people with completely different opinions, viewpoints, and premises can find common cause and peaceful compromise thanks to a system which was designed from the beginning to stay out of the way of the citizenry as they go about their daily lives, thus producing a system in which neighbors of fundamentally different ideologies can nevertheless associate with each other.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think there are a lot of awesome things about the US, but also a lot of really messed up things. I don't see the problem in holding both views at the same time.
I love living here, but I'd still like it to be better.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
America, right or wrong: when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be made right.
I love the vibrancy, diversity, access to so many resources, freedom to move about and change jobs, natural resources, ingenuity, literary and artistic history, amazing biographies, generosity, openness, kindness, and state-supported educational system, among other things not at the tip of my tongue.
Lots I want to make right, but many things I want to keep right, too.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
It's a fair question. I am not a liberal, but I like
freedom of speech freedom of religion supermarkets wide open spaces some reasonable expectation, most of the time, that horribly unjust things won't happen to me or those I love Internet the world's most vibrant pop culture (although Japan is competition) the world's most vibrant Christian community (I think) pluralism: plenty of others to discuss things with pluralism: when one group gets too restrictive or cliquish, you can drop out and join another the freedom to create clubs around pretty much anything we want, from goldfish to politics to personal growth jobs that pay enough tons of natural beauty easy and relatively affordable travel more private charity relative to other rich countries relatively low taxes we take action first, or close to first, whether it's fighting terror, helping after the tsunami (or warning its victims before it hit), preventing pandemics, what have you in most areas of life from medical care to where you live to 51 flavors, you get to pick if there's anything I need, unless it's ridiculously expensive, I can probably get it standard of living: electricity, phone, etc. international food low unemployment -- I'd hate being chronically unemployed
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Dude, a balance between liberals and conservatives is what makes this country better..."
As lovely as that may sound, I'm not sure any solid liberal or conservative could honestly agree. Quite the contrary, it is the opposing party that is hindering progress.
That said, I also love all the things about this country that others have already so poetically described.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: And I secretly punch kittens.
It's true.
I knew it!
That was you last week, wasn't it? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I like the people.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I love the fact that, however many steps back we may take here and there, for the most part the American society has been moving towards more and more freedom and social equality.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: America, right or wrong: when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be made right.
Didn't you move to Canada? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maybe she thought that she was what was wrong with the U.S.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
As a member of the secret liberal cabal let me say there are so many things I love about America that I don't have time to write them down just now.
However, one of my favorite things is the attitude of the people.
Americans will do almost anything you ask them to, and almost nothing you tell them to.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: America, right or wrong: when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be made right.
Didn't you move to Canada?
Yes. And I'm still working on making and keeping America right, because I am a citizen of America, not Canada -- with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. (Some of which are quite expensive and/or tedious.)
I don't see a problem with that. My work crosses borders -- although I can see this may not be true for some. However, mine is not so limited.
---
Edited in follow-up: And the same is true for my husband. He was contracted, as a Canadian, to do work for the Canadian government while living with me in the US. He also worked for US institutions as part of his job, too, just as I currently work for a Canadian institution while also completing my US obligations.
We will likely continue to cross the border throughout our work lives, and we are looking into having a home base in both countries. We have thought about establishing dual citizenship for us both, and that is an option, but it comes with some questions and entanglements that may or may not be worth the hassle. As it is, we can both work in either country and cross the border freely -- those are our current immediate priorities.
We are lucky to have such opportunities available to us, and we work hard to maintain and better the systems that trained us.
Again, I see nothing odd, immoral, or hypocritical about this. Do you, Jon Boy and MrSquicky? Or were the comments above intended merely as humor?
*mildly, but interested
[ June 29, 2007, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Both Jon Boy's and MrSquicky's comments read as jokes to me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's great. I'd love to hear the same from them, too.
It has been an area of -- well, not contention, but at least tedious snide repetition -- in my life as of late, particularly online. I can deal with slings and arrows fairly well, but I prefer to keep my friendly relations clearly friendly when I can.
The world, alas, is confusing, and I am far too often feeling the need to gird against it as of late. *woebegonish
---
Edited to add (and *prickly )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Am I a liberal? I don't know. My most important concerns involve emphatically liberal solutions, and the vast majority of villains on my political list are token boys of the conservatives, so I might as well be. What I'm sure I make a good representative of, though, is a person who's mostly stuck bitching and carousing at the status quo. Does this activity mean that I must hate America? Does it mean I'd like to be 'liberated' by China or Iran? The notion is absurd. I, like most involved and politically active citizens, complain and pillory because it's my job as an American who understands that apathy and complacency only give insincere politicians plenty of breathing room to continue with what they're doing. While I think we've gained a hell of a lot more in the past 50 years than we have lost in the last six, we still need to make sure that we're always taking more steps forward.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:That's great.
:: laugh :: Point taken. I should have said that based on what I know of the two posters the chances that their posts weren't written in jest are slim to none. If it were, say, Occasional or Jay I'd have assumed the opposite.
But even so, that's just my read, and at the end of the day doesn't necessarily contribute much in the way of reassurance.
quote:It has been an area of -- well, not contention, but at least tedious snide repetition -- in my life as of late, particularly online.
Really? How utterly...idiotic of whoever has been flinging that kind of crap at you.
quote:I can deal with slings and arrows fairly well, but I prefer to keep my friendly relations clearly friendly when I can.
Sure, makes sense.
quote:The world, alas, is confusing, and I am far too often feeling the need to gird against it as of late. *woebegonish
((CT)) Sorry you've been finding yourself in need of emotional armor lately.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
I'm curious as to whether people who are self-described conservatives have reasons OTHER than the ones listed here (by liberals and non-liberals alike) for loving America.
Maybe some of you could give us your list of positives about America?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mine was definitely meant as a joke and I didn't conceive of it being regarded as anything but. I am pretty much certain that Jon Boy was joking as well.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
By the way, my positives about this country have been listed already, but I'd like to add that I enjoy:
- Living in a country with a high standard of living. We have access to the best of what the world has to offer.
- The rule of law and the habits that go with it are well-engrained here.
- Our educational opportunities (both public and private) are excellent.
- We are a pluralistic society and we actually worry about things that pose a threat to that tradition.
- We have strong building codes and a good deal of effort and money is spent on health and safety of our citizens.
- Our armed forces are answerable to the civilian power, and the vast majority of the people in the military not only support that ideal, but spend their careers defending it.
- With notable recent exceptions, private property rights are upheld by our legal system.
- We have some form of separation between church and state.
- We can legally and openly criticize our leaders and hold them accountable to the same laws as apply to every citizen.
As others have said, I don't believe we are perfect, nor do I think we're the only country on the Earth with some or all of these attributes.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
I love that our country is based on the principle that there are fundamental rights that should not be abridged even if a majority desire it.
That we don't have to "love it or leave it"; there is a mechanism for peaceful change.
The diversity.
The opportunity.
The generosity.
That we are not a stagnant society.
Note: I am a liberal and really a member of a secret cabal Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:That's great.
:: laugh :: Point taken.
No, really, I did meant that was great. It was reassuring.
quote:
quote:The world, alas, is confusing, and I am far too often feeling the need to gird against it as of late. *woebegonish
((CT)) Sorry you've been finding yourself in need of emotional armor lately.
Well, you know, the saying that "the only consistent thing about all of your disatisfying relationships is you" does have some merit. I've been a real prickly pear lately. [Thanks for the many kindnesses, Noemon. ]
---
Thanks for the reassurance, MrSquicky. I appreciate the friendship that lies behind the calm, thoughtful response.
I'll try to pull a few of my thorns. *grin
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Where do I sign up for this liberal cabal? I've been meaning to join a cabal for a while now, and this one seems pretty snappy!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You have to be initiated by a friend. Otherwise you might be a Conservative spy.
Or a third party candidate.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: And I secretly punch kittens.
It's true.
I knew it!
That was you last week, wasn't it?
I... I just couldn't help myself. Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I love that I have the right to say whatever I think needs to be said
I love the fact that I can criticize the government without serving jail time as a result.
I enjoy the fact that I have the right to dissent peacefully and assemble with like-minded individuals
I love that I can go to Vegas without wading through some bureaucracy for permission
I love that I have both the freedom to ruin my life or make it wonderful.
I love that I can read any book I want and listen to any music I want.
I love the fact that I can vote my conscience regardless of my race, religion, or party without fear of consequences.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Yah, America. A flash in the pan.
It'll never last.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: And I secretly punch kittens.
I kick puppies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: And I secretly punch kittens.
I kick puppies.
I pit them in mortal combat against each other.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: And I secretly punch kittens.
I kick puppies.
Pfft. That's not news. Or a secret.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I love the fact that almost everywhere, including places in the middle of nowhere, you can find a toilet where you can sit down in an enclosed building and use toilet paper provided for you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And unlike many places in Europe, you needn't pay for the privilege.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
To be honest, most of the things listed here are things you can say of many other countries as well. And some things, such as gay rights or women's rights, are actually handled better in countries such as Finland or Sweden than in America, I feel.
Anyway, what I find positive about the US is the diversity of the society in that there are many different people with many different views, and it's taken as a granted that there are many people with many views, and that it's even seen as a good thing, not as a threat. (Though I suppose this'd also apply to other countries as well, such as Canada.)
Also, the free toilets, if that's true.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Free toilets stocked with toilet paper really are the norm here, Snail. I've been startled by the lack of them in most of the other countries I've travelled in.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I love the fact that almost everywhere, including places in the middle of nowhere, you can find a toilet where you can sit down in an enclosed building and use toilet paper provided for you.
The value of this cannot be overstated.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I love the fact that almost everywhere, including places in the middle of nowhere, you can find a toilet where you can sit down in an enclosed building and use toilet paper provided for you.
Yes, I agree too! Can we universally agree that this one thing about America, at least, is great?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yes, I think so. It was such a pain trying to find a public bathroom in the UK. I was surprised at how many large businesses did not have them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I almost hesitate to ask, but what do people do instead?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Evolve really enormous bladders?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I almost hesitate to ask, but what do people do instead?
*Warning YOU asked for it. Talk of doing the unmentionable below.
I still have no qualms with peeing outside so long as nobody else can see me, or if from a distance I look like I am just standing there, this works best a night.
Where I grew up in Hong Kong if I was walking down the street and I saw a little kid simply squat by the side of the road I would have thought nothing of it (Chinese people routinely cut slits in boys pants so they don't have to drop their pants and try to squat with them in the way. Little girls would be held up with their front facing upwards by their parents and told, "OK Go" whatever vile subtances projected from their orifaces would then safely spray and plop onto the street in full view of the public.
If I walked down an alley and saw a man simply peeing against the wall I did him the courtesy of ignoring him and his naughty bits, he did me the courtesy of not pretending I was not there, i.e turning and offering me a salutation.
I still don't know what adult girls do when they need to go.
In Malaysia you find some bushes, they are to be found EVERYWHERE.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I almost hesitate to ask, but what do people do instead?
In Finland there are public toilets, they just cost money to get into.
But yay! Free toilets are definitely a Good Thing. Why can't we have free toilets? Though it's probably okay if they don't have free toilets in Sweden either, we just need to get them first...
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
My favorite thing about America is the concept that if you work hard, you can become anything you want to be. It's not that America doesn't have classes, but through hard work and a touch of luck, a person can become achieve more than they would expect from the background they were born in to. I don't know that this is totally unique to America, but I do think it's more internalized as part of our cultural ethos here than elsewhere.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:My favorite thing about America is the concept that if you work hard, you can become anything you want to be. It's not that America doesn't have classes, but through hard work and a touch of luck, a person can become achieve more than they would expect from the background they were born in to. I don't know that this is totally unique to America, but I do think it's more internalized as part of our cultural ethos here than elsewhere.
That's good and bad, especially when it comes to moral compromises. If you are willing to exploit all of your advantages and the disadvantages of others, then the whole world is at your feet. The flip side, of course, is that people who aren't willing to do this aren't trying hard enough. There is a difference between hard work and dirty work, and I'm not sure which our great American ethos rewards and encourages.
[ July 02, 2007, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I like that we're pretty good at assimilating immigrants.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is a difference between hard work and dirty work, and I'm not sure which our great American ethos rewards and encourages.
Irami, your decision to treat all life as a narrative at times makes it very hard for you to see the obvious: that both are rewarded and encouraged, typically by different people and to different degrees.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:My favorite thing about America is the concept that if you work hard, you can become anything you want to be.
Your socioeconomic strata is more rigidly defined and static in America than it is in most of the EU countries.
Ironically, the best way to get the American dream is to try for it in Europe.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I'm probably as liberal as you can get around here. And I think that Occasional's OP, along with his other posts on the subject, does insult people like me with the presumption that we (a) are not patriots and (b) somehow need to "prove" our loyalty. Both are wrong, and this is why.
I love that our Founding Fathers had the opportunity to set up a monarchy and/or dictatorship, and refused to, out of principle.
I love that, when our first attempt at establishing a governing body failed, we didn't devolve into chaos and destruction, but through civil discourse, rewrote our Constitution and emerged stronger than ever.
I love that the law of our land is a living, breathing document that has the flexibility to meet the changing needs of its people.
I love that people of all faiths, creeds, races, and worldviews are welcome here, and have the same right (albeit sometimes not the opportunity- but we're working on that!) to participate in government as anyone else.
I love that you can drive from city to city and never experience the same local culture twice.
I love our national parks, our forests, our bays and rivers and lakes and skies. Seriously, they're freakin' beautiful.
I love that my parents were able to move here without understanding more than basic English, and through dedication and hard work, put me in a situation wherein higher education is not only possible for me, but expected of me.
Yep. American kinda rules. We're nowhere near perfect- in fact, sometimes we're downright scummy. But I think we're doing all right.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:My favorite thing about America is the concept that if you work hard, you can become anything you want to be.
Your socioeconomic strata is more rigidly defined and static in America than it is in most of the EU countries.
Ironically, the best way to get the American dream is to try for it in Europe.
Yes thank you for that unashamedly objective fact posted in a thread designed to allow people to talk about what they appreciate about America.
Please continue posting disparaging remarks about the this country whilst simultaneously talking about how great Europe is. I am so happy your continent stacks up to our country so well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Uhh there's nothing disparaging about it at all.
It's just one of those quirky facts, since the american dream is literally the rags-to-riches mobility deal, you know?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Uhh there's nothing disparaging about it at all.
It's just one of those quirky facts, since the american dream is literally the rags-to-riches mobility deal, you know?
Yes that is part of it. But unless you have some sort of advanced degree in sociology with an emphasis in American/European comparison, or else God himself decided to let you know that this is true, I just don't know how you can make such a claim.
I might as well argue that people in Europe compared to America are less in love with each other which makes Paris' claim to be the "City of Love" bogus.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
He could have looked up "social mobility" in Wikipedia at some point, which leads to a study from the London School of Economics link :
quote: The report focused on how education affected the life chances of British children compared with those in other countries. It put the UK and the US at the bottom of a social mobility league table of eight European and North American countries, with Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada.
That would alleviate the need to postulate a less likely divine revelation Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Well of COURSE the LONDON school of economics is going to place the UK at the lower tiers of the study! Don't try to rustle my position with your "facts"
edit: And just in case, /sarcasm.
[ July 02, 2007, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.
If you're accusing the school of bias simply due to its location in London, that seems to be a rather "ad hominem." In addition, even if it did falsify its data to make the UK look bad (and I'm not entirely sure what its motives would be), why would it also falsify its data for the US versus the other six countries?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hold on let me add an emoticon to my previous post to make it more clear.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dude. That edit means I am completely confused now.
I'm just going to say that I'm not particularly attached to either "side." He might be right, he might not, I was just sorta curious if he was. Thats just literally the first study I found.
edit: There's a second linked study from an American source at American Progress, if a non-foreign source helps any.
quote: The United States has long been known as the land of opportunity, where hard work is rewarded and economic prosperity is within reach for all. Judging from opinion surveys, our national faith in this proposition is on the rise... We are also more optimistic about the value of hard work than those in many other countries... These survey results suggest that the American Dream is alive and well. But what exactly are the chances that an American child who is born to low-income parents will end up rich? ... While few would deny that it is possible to start poor and end rich, the evidence suggests that this feat is more difficult to accomplish in the United States than in other high-income nations. This claim is based on cross-country comparisons of the intergenerational elasticity of earnings, a statistic that measures the percentage difference in expected child earnings that is associated with a one percent difference in parental earnings. Higher elasticities mean less mobility: they imply that parental income matters more, or that the children of the poor are more likely to remain poor. Figure 2, below, displays the intergenerational elasticity of earnings between fathers and sons for nine upper-income countries, and shows that the United States and the United Kingdom are especially immobile....
In the interests of full disclosure, the paper does go on to talk about why there might be less mobility in the States, and why this might not necessarily be "unfair."
I'm just going to add that while Samprimary was not particularly *diplomatic*, that does not automatically make what he said incorrect or the topic impossible to research for anyone with less than a degree in the appropriate area. *shrug*
[ July 03, 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My comment was made purely in jest. Why would I complain about "facts" and for what plausible reason could a UK school intentionally place its country in an unfavorable position within such a study?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry. Misinterpreted your tone then. Your post combined with the previous made me wrongly think that you were a bit outraged/offended.
As a consolation, I'll note that this study actually backs up your non-serious assertion that people in the United States are more in love than those in France (or at least more sexually satisfied).
quote: The report focused on how education affected the life chances of British children compared with those in other countries. It put the UK and the US at the bottom of a social mobility league table of eight European and North American countries, with Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada.
So when he said "most of the EU countries" he excluded UK, Ireland, France, Italy and how many others?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note that most of the countries scoring well in the measure also have score far higher on socioeconomic homogeneity measures. Countries with higher socioeconomic homogeneity are known to have higher inter-generational income mobility with similar policies. Many consider the explanation to be that, due to higher homogeneity, subsequent generations tend to persist practices of their own (and the prejudices of others) less from the previous generations. This does not mean fewer people end up poor than the previous generation, but it introduces a lot of noise between generations as things reshuffle, reducing the correlation between parental and child income.
This leads to my next point: that measure (inter-generational) of income mobility is not very good. Intergenerational income mobility measures the amount of income mobility that is explained by parental income changes. If child incomes are just not very well explained by parental incomes, or if most children have a similar size in increase in income compared to their parents, neither of those affects is captured. Broader statistics that are less subject to such nuanced effects show extremely high intra-generational income mobility in the US (whatever you think of this source, most of the article just cites well-regarded studies): http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1418.cfm
quote:So, if everybody's income is 50 percent higher than their parents', that shows up as zero income mobility. On the other hand, if average income stays constant, but a lot of low-earning parents have high-earning children, and vice-versa, that shows up as high income mobility.
quote:1. "Age-adjusted parental wealth, by itself, explains less than 10 percent of the variation in age-adjusted child wealth."
2. 20 percent of parents in the lowest quintile of the parent's wealth distribution have children who end up in the top two quintiles of their generation. One-quarter of the parents in the highest wealth quintile end up with kids in the two lowest quintiles.
3. The age-adjusted intergenerational wealth elasticity is 0.37. What does this mean? If parents have wealth 50 percent over the mean in their generation, the wealth of their children will be 18 percent above the mean in the childrens' generation.
So no, there's no particular reason to think your social strata is more binding in the US than in Europe. The studies brought to bear in this thread only support much weaker statements, namely that parental income in the US contributes slightly more to future child income than in many other nations (note that this would happen if parents were particularly good at passing along their work ethics).
It uses a very large sample, and was able to get very thorough data, and was collected randomly. It is a very strong study.
quote:In other words, a member of the bottom income bracket in 1979 would have a better chance of moving to the top income bracket by 1988 than remaining in the bottom bracket.
That's a rather striking finding of the study. People in the US (at least in that period) are better at breaking out of social strata than staying in them, by far. In fact, they're better at jumping to the highest income bracket in the US then they are at remaining in the lowest. That's a pretty dang high amount of income mobility.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As for how many EU countries were excluded, there are twenty-seven countries in it currently . . .
So it seems the US is likely doing quite well in relation to the EU overall, even by the measures cited.
Of course, some of that is for similar reasons. For instance, income in Ireland has been going up nearly across the board, so I doubt it would show up as having much inter-generational income mobility.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
An unscientific, completely anecdotal perspective:
My dad and uncle own a plant in Salt Lake City, and they hire about 70 unskilled, blue-collar workers. Not completely unskilled - you get some skills by working there - but no one goes to school or trains somewhere in order to work at a metal finishing plant. They hire people that seem serious and like they would be good employees, and then they train them.
My dad far, far prefers to employ immigrants. That's because in order to stay competitive and keep the business running, he really can't start anyone at over eight or nine dollars an hour. However, since it's a full-time job, sometimes there are swing or graveyeard shifts, and every new employee gets specialized training so he wants them to stay around - he needs to hire adults.
In his experience, immigrants are DEFINITELY the best employees because they are qualified for this job but generally lack the qualifications for higher-paying work. (While the supervisors have to be bilingual (so the owners can communicate with them) the line workers don't have to speak English.) They had enough gumption to move to a strange land to make a better life, and they generally do. $10-12 an hour won't make anyone rich and you can't live in the avenues, but it's possible to survive if you work full-time and it's way more than they were earning in Mexico or Vietnam. Also, they usually came for their families and don't have destructive personal habits that would make them poor choices for employees.
However, he really doesn't like hiring the children of immigrants, because in order for the children of the immigrants to be in a position where $10 an hour is the best they can get, they had to make some really poor choices. They had to drop out of high school, skip community college, ignore opportunities in general. The parents work at the shop (generally until they learn English), but the children do a whole lot better.
The choice isn't to pay more - he can't - because they get outbid by plants in China already, and only have the benefit of being close by to justify their higher prices. If their prices went up (as they'd have to if labor went up - labor is by far the biggest expense), the work would just go to China. In the meantime, on top of the 70 blue-collar jobs, there are 25-30 skilled and white-collar jobs that are possible because the plant is there. It's a win for everyone.
I like that about this place.
[ July 03, 2007, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So when he said "most of the EU countries" he excluded UK, Ireland, France, Italy and how many others?
Quickly, I might point out that I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek. While I'm sure that there is a 0% probability that Samprimary acquired his information from divine revelation, I am only marginally more confident about his chances of acquiring his information *specifically* from Wikipedia and specifically from this study.
Looking quickly through, it looks like it cited a study that picked high-income countries comparable to the US for more than one generation. France is actually included in the second study. I'll look more closely (plus Fugu's stuff) as time permits.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Looking through the data, it seems like Dagonee's objection is best founded. I'm not 100% sure why the papers picked the countries listed, but I can give several good guesses.
The second paper from American Progress (which is actually the most detailed of any of the three sources so far) indicates that the countries were chosen by income level. Looking at a GDP per capita map seems to confirm this, roughly half of the EU countries, mainly from the former Soviet bloc are excluded by income. This also explains the seemingly odd inclusion of Canada in a European study, Canada has the closest income to the US. There may also be the problem of obtaining multiple generational data from the former Soviet bloc countries (for the obvious reasons) although this does not explain Italy and Ireland (However, it does explain why Germany is specifically labelled as "West Germany" in the first study).
So, inclusion of countries, seems to be a valid concern.
Fugu:
quote:
quote:In other words, a member of the bottom income bracket in 1979 would have a better chance of moving to the top income bracket by 1988 than remaining in the bottom bracket.
That's a rather striking finding of the study. People in the US (at least in that period) are better at breaking out of social strata than staying in them, by far. In fact, they're better at jumping to the highest income bracket in the US then they are at remaining in the lowest. That's a pretty dang high amount of income mobility.
The issue of intra versus inter-generational mobility is interesting. However, while I am not convinced that inter-generational mobility is the best measure, intra-generational mobility seems to be actually a worse measure, especially when measured by annual income tax files over a lifetime as in your last reference.
You can think about that easily be examining well, even my case. In the last two years, by that measure I would have jumped one quintile per year. Of course what really happened was I graduated from college, switched from a student job to working for a half year (as far as taxes are concerned), and then for a full year after that. At the same time, my father retired and would have dropped a quintile. In the last study, this would be shown as great evidence of mobility, while in the first two it would be shown for what it is, both my father and I are going back to our "natural" middle-class status.
Now the question is whether this anecdotal evidence persists when looking at the data, well according to the second study (which spends about a 1/3 of its length talking about short-term variability):
quote: Upward mobility is almost always largest and most likely, on average, for those who start at the bottom, while downward mobility is largest and most likely for those who start at the top. This fact, which many find surprising, is a statement of the well-established empirical finding that incomes regress to the mean (or median) over time. As a result, this kind of analysis will rarely conclude that the rich are getting richer, no matter how rapid the secular rise in cross-sectional income inequality may be. The reason for this counter-intuitive finding is that when we select a group of (say) high-income people, such as the top quintile, we necessarily will capture a large number of people who are in that quintile by virtue of their having had higher-than-usual incomes in that year. Of course, there will also be some people who are in that quintile despite having had a worse-than-usual year, but the higher up the income ladder we go, the greater will be the share of people whose annual incomes were unusually high for someone endowed with their human, financial and real assets. Such people are headed for a fall: Next year, it is likely that they will earn something more nearly resembling their usual incomes, i.e., they will experience downward short-term mobility. As a result, the upper brackets contain a disproportionate share of soon-to-be downwardly mobile people, and vice-versa for the bottom brackets. This effect will be more pronounced when overall income volatility is higher.
This leads to odd effects such as:
quote:One of the strongest predictors of upward short-term mobility is being in a household in which nobody has health insurance. The reason may be that the set of households that lack any health insurance contains a large proportion of the unemployed, who are likely to display significant upward short-term mobility when they find new employment. This points to one of the pitfalls of studying short-term mobility: You need to consider why people find themselves in the state they are in year one before you can fully understand the meaning of their transition to year two. The same reasoning may explain why households that received food stamps were upwardly mobile: They could be people who were suffering from temporarily low incomes.
Thus, I'm not convinced that we should be studying short-term income changes when looking at whether strata persist, the income changes between generations seem much more relevant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The primary criticism is that the measures of income mobility being cited ignore general increases in income and lack of correlation of child income with parent income. See the quotation about everyone increasing in income by 50%. That is, the statement that it is harder to move between social strata in the US is simply not backed up by an observation that inter-generational income mobility (which is a measure of the elasticity of income change between generations) is higher in other countries; the measure isn't strong enough to support the conclusion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You could entirely be right, I just do not follow.
Why *should* a measure of income mobility take into account general increases of income? If everyone's income goes up by 50% across the board, then it would seem that no one has moved between strata?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:he really doesn't like hiring the children of immigrants, because in order for the children of the immigrants to be in a position where $10 an hour is the best they can get, they had to make some really poor choices. They had to drop out of high school, skip community college, ignore opportunities in general.
I'm not sure that's true. And even if it were, I'm not sure that dropping out of high school, skipping community college, or ignoring opportunities should preclude one from working a job that you admit does not require training.
I will be the first to say that in America, the money is out there, if you aren't too particular about how you acquire it, and that's no small virtue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's a rather striking finding of the study.
IIRC, Russell, they didn't exclude retired individuals and students from that study. Ergo, anyone who had little to no income in college would appear upwardly mobile within four years, while anyone in the lowest income bracket due to retirement had a good chance of dying and not appearing on the study at all within the same period.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Without commenting on anything that any particular study may or may not have done right or wrong in coincidentally supporting what I said:
Wealth distribution is a crucial measure of a country's ability to deliver on the promise of prosperity. Unfortunately, the United States ranks 24th among the industrial nations when it comes to these sorts of wealth issues. All 18 of the developed European countries have less income inequality between the rich folk and the poor folk, and they all tend towards having less fickle fates for above-average wealth.
The Foundation on Economic Trends in D.C. took a look at the 16 European nations for which data was available involving wealth and poverty levels. They found that we've still got more people living in poverty, and that our socioeconomic positions are more fixed, even for those of us who work hard for the promise of future prosperity.
Our structure contributes to this. It's not as helpful to the poor. Our living costs contribute to this, too: our federal poverty measurements are based on an obsolete food-based metric that ignores the compound problems that exist when the poorest demographics spend the highest percentage of their income on rent and transportation. America is also a more dangerous place to live, especially for the poor. The effect is cumulative and the E.U. has a higher quality of life index than the U.S., even when we have higher GDP per capita than anyone but .. um, Luxemburg's, I think.
Don't get me wrong; I still love america and support the troops and am strong on terror and am a uniter and not a divider. Honestly, I'd rather live here than anywhere else. It doesn't mean, though, that I'm willing to suspend commentary on subjects that show the United States needing improvement. I don't bring up comparisons to the E.U. to pooh-pooh the U.S. or idealize Europeland as the greener grass on the other side. All countries have problems. It's best to try to find answers, even if it means admitting relative shortcomings to other people's systems. America's got a lot of cohesion and potential and I could see a lot changing in 10-20 years in regards to our dogs of social policy.
Posted by timothytheenchanter (Member # 7041) on :
I don't know if i'd call myself a liberal or a conservative, the whole label thing kinda throws me off. I am a member of the military serving overseas in the desert at the moment, and the thing i like most about our country is that I am free to burn the American flag and the worst anyone will do is say "that's very disrespectful." In my opinion there is no symbol that shouts how free we are to do what we want than to burn the American flag. At the same time, i recognize it is disrespect, and just take some pride that i'm allowed to do it if i felt like it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)