Hi all,

Over in the Guitar forum, a thread on Gibson's imbroglio with endangered wood took a turn toward a broader discussion of why the US is so messed up. I thought there might be a wider audience here on the Musician Lounge so I'm taking the liberty of picking up the relevant part of the thread and inviting others to join with their thoughts. The first entry is my response on the topic.

Quote dubbmann:

---

Quote TamaBrett:

---

dubbmann Quote:

---

Two years earlier, armed agents stormed a Nashville Gibson factory over imported wood from Madagascar.

---

You need armed officers to raid a guitar factory? There is something seriously wrong with that country. Or perhaps it was a combined guitar factory and meth lab?

---

i'd need a week to explain just how many things are wrong with this country. a couple of stats:

1) there are 310 million americans. there are 250 million american guns.

2) the average german is six times less likely to be murdered than the average american. the average japahese is 11 times less likely. so much for guns keeping you safe.

3) politicians are free to solicit bribes (sorry, campaign contributions) and giving of campaign contributions is now protected as free speech. we will need a constitutional amendment to change that.

4) health care is a privilege, not a right. despite 45 million americans living without insurance, one diagnosis away from impoverishing illness, the US still manages to spend twice as much per person on health care as France, the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.

5) race is the subtext of many, many debates about everything from voting procedures to welfare to drug laws. the right wing has perfected race-baiting to draw the votes of poorly eductated working class whites, who then vote for politicians who cut taxes on the rich and cut benefits that these same whites rely on.

i could go on but it's too depressing.

d

---

and this response

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote dubbmann:

---

despite 45 million americans living without insurance, one diagnosis away from impoverishing illness, the US still manages to spend twice as much per person on health care as France, the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.
d

---

Very true and one of the great paradoxes of American public debate. Of your 310 million people there are some seriously intelligent, capable debaters out there who are passionate about the healthcare issue. Yet the quality of the conversation is childishly poor. "Public healthcare: good or bad"? Nobody says "we are spending billions on public healthcare and not getting much healthcare for the bucks". You'll forgive me for saying this as an observer from another country but it seems rather un-American to me... I mean normally you guys are really focused on efficiency. ....

---

To which I'd add that there is no greater proof of the absolute madness that has overtaken this country in the name of laissez-faire economics and neo-liberalism than that Frisonic's point is absolutely true. The American belief in pragmatic efficiency that largely governed affairs here from the time of Franklin Roosevelt to the advent of Ronald Reagan has totally been abandoned. I have much more to say on this but I'll shut up at this point and invite others to join the discussion.

Cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

Hey dubbman

I have worked with a lot of guys from the US, sympathisers to both Republican and Democrat causes. The main arguments I hear levelled at socialised healthcare are:

1) Anything socialist is bad;
2) It is inefficient;
3) It leads to the "powers that be" deciding who gets what; and
4) It is unaffordable.

However, before we all get on our high horses, these arguments come from BOTH SIDES. Having two parties in US politics has forced both Republicans and Democrats to become very small-c catholic organisations, (not un like the Church of England), in that both parties are a consensus of a wide variety of views. This makes US politics considerably more nuanced than you might imagine once you have stripped away all the brash shouty-shoutiness of it.

Now, on this side of the pond it is relatively easy for people familiar with the NHS open care model (private and public care available in parallel using the same facilities), to kill of everything but argument 4: healthcare has, after all, historically become more expensive over time, although UK healthcare remains much cheaper than US healthcare overall.

Then add into the mix that the UK in general, (not just the way we do things), is a mere quick pee in the Olympic swimming pool of American thought, then it is hardly surprising that the US are inherently suspicious of a healthcare model that is also available...

...in Iran...

...for example.

I'm not saying they are right, by the way: just that they are American and educated for reasons of history from birth to believe that the American way of life is a righteous one.

What we perceive as a massive injustice, just does not play that way there in mainstream US thought.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Whenever I think about the US I'm reminded of a Douglas Adams' quote about Milliways

Quote:

---

no expense was spared to create the impression that no expense was spared

---

I have a friend - a Bostonian - author of several seminal papers in Health Informatics and awarded a lifetime achievement award by the British Computing Society who "can't afford the health insurance to move back to the US to retire". Thankfully he loves the UK.

The country is suffering from collective myopia. Stand on the bridge behind the Abe Lincoln memorial and look at the skyscrapers of corporate America casting their shadow over congress and its all so painfully obvious.

--------------------
arK music

Regarding the healthcare issue specifically, I suspect the healthcare insurance industry have been highly successful in their strategy of 'divide and rule'. Their efforts on their own behalf probably have somewhat muted the level of debate (when I say muted I mean, sure its noisy but nobody on Capitol Hill has anything very helpful to say). Also the reality of how public healthcare actually works or doesn't work from state to state is not always very well understood. Even by people who live in a given state, never mind by outsiders. It certainly confuses me from a distance. For example, my mother in law has always lived pretty much on or under the bread line, in Massachusetts. No way could she ever afford to pay for health insurance. She is now quite elderly and has a number of health issues. In her State, because she has attained a certain age, she actually gets quite good public health care. At least as good as anything the NHS here in the UK can offer. But prior to attaining that age her health problems merely compounded, untreated and unrecognized. It took a few years after she became entitled for her to become aware that help was on offer to her.

The rules regarding lobbying on Capitol Hill are slightly bazar. You (Dubbman) mentioned in the earlier thread your concern that entities (be they corporations or whatever) could buy favor with congressmen/women and senators far too easily through largess in campaign donations. I wouldn't disagree. But go to DC as a lobbyist and try taking any public servant out to Starbucks for a $2 mocha frappe. Can't be done. They are simply not allowed to accept any kind of hospitality whatsoever. That certainly wouldn't be the case in Westminster here in the UK, where political parties are always getting caught trying to get around stringent donations rules but you can take any civil servant out to the most expensive restaurant in town without breaking a single rule. I've yet to meet one that wouldn't accept either (which does not imply that they are open to being bought). Its base over apex.

I'll reframe from getting into the NRA issues until we have exhausted the less obvious ones!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

My reasoned contribution to the debate would be this -

George Carlin on Corporate America!

Quote The Red Bladder:

---

My reasoned contribution to the debate would be this -

George Carlin on Corporate America!

---

And yet 'they' (those who own corporate America) are now mostly Chinese, which he didn't mention, and George Carlin demonstrated first hand that he is able to lobby against corporate America on YouTube with impunity and at no cost to himself. So amusing as his YouTube clip was it came across as entertaining, quasi naive and ultimately a statement of what is good about America (free speech/universal opportunity for share of voice). The latter perhaps being his real objective. Because that is something for the USA to celebrate. Along with having invented the modern civil rights movement and jazz music (and many of its subsequent derivatives). I used to include ice cream on that list until someone pointed out that was the Italians!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

That was from 1996 and Carlin is of course dead now.

Quote Frisonic:

---

George Carlin demonstrated first hand that he is able to lobby against corporate America on YouTube with impunity and at no cost to himself.

---

I guess post humously then! But those are the realities in 2012 even if he was still alive. Which I think is great.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

If I was going to cite one particular group as being culpable for what is not great about the USA it wouldn't be corporate America per say. That's too soft a target. It would be the letigeous culture. According to wiki.answers in 2007 there were 1,143,358 resident and active attorneys in the United States . Approximately one for every 270 Americans. Between them they do not have enough to do and so spend their time persuading people to settle simple disputes in disproportionate ways. Health care in particular has suffered from this. Any American health professional will instinctively approach a patient's condition as aggressively as possible, to avoid the possibility of getting sued. In the UK, where the litigious culture has failed to gain as much traction the approach will often be 'OK, let's keep an eye on this for now'. Our approach probably results in a few premature deaths here and there. The American approach results in all heath care being far more expensive than it need be and many patients having to endure unnecessary invasive treatment. That's just health care. You can see the black hand of the litigious culture all over the USA. Its lurking under every stone and creates far more problems that it solves. So, what's the matter with the United States? Too many lawyers!



--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

That certainly wouldn't be the case in Westminster here in the UK, where ... you can take any civil servant out to the most expensive restaurant in town without breaking a single rule. I've yet to meet one that wouldn't accept either (which does not imply that they are open to being bought).

---

I've spent four hours driving and listening to relaxing music trying to find a nice way of putting this...

Horsepoo! It is the nicest thing I could come up with in that time

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Fat, plain and simple. And increaingly the same thing that europe, and (you watch) china, australia... all the modern developed nations.

There are a large number who are just prepared to eat loads of fat, get stoned, drunk and watch tv and eat more fat.

And the Illuminarsey or Lizard Masons or whatever other group is blamed for this teriible conspiracy by anal wingnuts who dare not blame the "people" look at these fat bastards and they think "you have no respect for yourselves, you are idiots, you have every bit of information there has ever been and you still si there in your (better than the next door neighbour's) chair and you sit there and you talk rubbish about rubbish and you just keep poking down the fat, masturbating on some mind numbing game show or a clip show about [ ****** ] dogs dancing with midgets or some other [ ****** ] bullshit!

Carlin is right, they don't care about you, but what he left out was that you don't care about them, or anyone else for that matter... you only care about yourselves.

Unfortunately there are enogh of these idiots to facilitate a democratic system that can be bought, for the price, of some more FAT!

That's what's wrong.

Get up off arse and do something... wake up!

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

That certainly wouldn't be the case in Westminster here in the UK, where ... you can take any civil servant out to the most expensive restaurant in town without breaking a single rule. I've yet to meet one that wouldn't accept either (which does not imply that they are open to being bought).

---

I've spent four hours driving and listening to relaxing music trying to find a nice way of putting this...

Horsepoo! It is the nicest thing I could come up with in that time

Reg

---

Try it Reg! The rules (not necessarily the various departmental guidelines, which are advisory rather than mandatory and more circumspect) - and certainly the way they get applied shocked me when I was doing a lot of work in that part of the forest. Interestingly, as it sort of suggests the situation doesn't get abused, there are hardly any decent restaurants in Westminster. Its nearly all cheap and cheerful sandwich bars and the like.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

That certainly wouldn't be the case in Westminster here in the UK, where ... you can take any civil servant out to the most expensive restaurant in town without breaking a single rule. I've yet to meet one that wouldn't accept either (which does not imply that they are open to being bought).

---

I've spent four hours driving and listening to relaxing music trying to find a nice way of putting this...

Horsepoo! It is the nicest thing I could come up with in that time

Reg

---

Try it Reg! The rules (not necessarily the various departmental guidelines, which are advisory rather than mandatory and more circumspect) - and certainly the way they get applied shocked me when I was doing a lot of work in that part of the forest. Interestingly, as it sort of suggests the situation doesn't get abused, there are hardly any decent restaurants in Westminster. Its nearly all cheap and cheerful sandwich bars and the like.

---

I am perhaps being a little unfair on you. As you said, willingness to accept lunch does not mean someone is willing to act improperly.

The point is that rules and limits, in my view, stop nothing (and there are reasons why I am perhaps well qualified to form this view). For example, it is illegal under Mexican state law, (well it was six months ago but they just issued a new national law and I am still trying to work out the impact of that), to offer gifts or entertainment to a Mexican public official of more that 1000 Pesos. This is clearly going to be abused, as it will barely buy you a couple of Big Macs in Mexico City and Mexicans have an incredibly strong food and entertainment culture.

Secondly, the law in the UK has been pretty clear for over a century. The first modern act to prevent corruption in public office came into force in 1889 and was updated in 1906 and 1916, primarily in an attempt to cope with war profiteering during the Boer and Great Wars. These Acts were updated in the Anti Terror, Crime and Security Act of 2001 to make it absolutely clear where the burden of proof lies when promising or offering gifts or entertainment to public officials. Now we have gone to the Bribery Act 2010 which repeals and consolidates all this law whilst taking on all the hubris of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977, expanding England and Wales jurisprudence to cover the acts of foreign nationals (something for which many people on this forum seem to detest the US). What is more this applies across the board including in commerce (but at least it does not saddle business with the exacting accounting provisions of the American Act).

The benefit from all of this law.... is minuscule, the serious fraud office can probably afford to prosecute around 2 major bribery cases per annum on top of their other caseload.

My point is that it is not illegal in UK law to take a public official to lunch for commercial purposes, it is illegal to take them to lunch in order to convince them to act improperly. Having dealt at a procurement level with both local and national government for decades, I can assure you that the response to this is as varied as snowflakes. Broadly, people will "go Dutch", but the closer you get to Westminster, the more likely you are to find ourself plundering your credit card to fund somebody else's fine wine habit.

None of this make a penneth's worth of difference. Bribery is about culture. To generalise: one third of the people you meet are pretty much incorruptible, one third are probably actively corrupt, the people in the middle will consider if they can get away with it. In the UK (corruption perception index 7.8), people think they will not get away with it. In Italy (corruption perception index 3.9), they think they will.

Here endeth the first lesson on financial crime.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Wouldn't disagree with any of that. And it is fairly clear that the actual rules are about to get tightened up in the UK with a ratchet. But for now the USA are more progressive in preventing bribery of their public servants, whilst having a problem of endemic proportions when it comes to wealthy entities contributing to campaign funds, and de facto setting policy agendas. In the UK its the other way around, except fortunately it seems our public servants, by and large, are not to be bought.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Wouldn't disagree with any of that. And it is fairly clear that the actual rules are about to get tightened up in the UK with a ratchet. But for now the USA are more progressive in preventing bribery of their public servants, whilst having a problem of endemic proportions when it comes to wealthy entities contributing to campaign funds, and de facto setting policy agendas. In the UK its the other way around, except fortunately it seems our public servants, by and large, are not to be bought.

---

Okay, one last go...

In short, I agree with the spirit of what you say.

However, rules without consequences are never the answer. They were not when I was five and they are not now I am forty-five. Our fine cousins in the US make more and more rules to try and maintain drug and corruption free world that never has and never will exist. All along the way misery results, primarily because a US-centred politics and world view sets impossible goals for societies they barely understand. One of these societies, some might argue, is their own.

That £40 limit on payments to public officials in Mexico is the result of America prosecuting a war by proxy on cocaine use. The corruption in Mexico, (which as never great), has become far worse because American drugs policy has created billion-dollar warlords who will protect you (if you work for them) or dump the head of you son on your doorstep with his face the obvious victim of having been beaten to death until his teeth are powder (if you do not). Sometimes they will hurt you because they can.

I really, really wish that rules were the solution. However, after some life experience with detecting the passage of dirty money around the world, I would say: if you make a rule, set an extra place at supper for the Lord of Misrule.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Reg I hate rules as much as anyone. I reckon a mistrust of rules is at the centre of the American psyche (so far as I've managed to glean). Its a sad indictment of human nature that they are necessary at all although we all know why they are. 'What's wrong with the USA' Dubbman asks? He's especially concerned about the gun laws and the lack of public healthcare, which you also recognise as a particular problem. Red Bladder is weary of faceless corporations. OW's concerned about obesity and a reluctance to accept any personal responsibility for broader problems, which to my mind is also linked with the healthcare issue. I've pointed my finger at the litigious culture and several of us have cited the cost of political campaigns and they 'cost' of the donations they must be fed. We're all right. But I think these are problems that every country faces. We can be proud of our NHS but it's not the best public healthcare in Europe. We've got most of the guns out of harm's way but then we don't have any dangerous wildlife wondering around here in the UK! Faceless corporations manipulate us as much as they do anywhere. If you've got a pension of any description in the pipeline you're likely a shareholder in one of these heinous institutions. I'm personally proud that the UK has rejected the litigious culture, up to a point (rejected it that is)... And we all have to do what we can to keep our governmental organisations honest. Here in the UK and over there in the USA I think we are lucky in that respect, certainly by international standards. As for keeping people more active and engaged, I guess that's what things like the Olympics are for. I don't know how effective they are but we try.

So I say to Dubbman don't lose too much sleep Dude. It ain't so bleak in the USA. I don't think so anyway. There is just as much that I think is the matter with the UK. I'm going to spend three weeks in your country come the end of the month, visiting with folks, and I'm really looking forwards to it!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

If I was going to cite one particular group as being culpable for what is not great about the USA it wouldn't be corporate America per say. That's too soft a target. It would be the letigeous culture. According to wiki.answers in 2007 there were 1,143,358 resident and active attorneys in the United States . Approximately one for every 270 Americans. Between them they do not have enough to do and so spend their time persuading people to settle simple disputes in disproportionate ways. Health care in particular has suffered from this. Any American health professional will instinctively approach a patient's condition as aggressively as possible, to avoid the possibility of getting sued. In the UK, where the litigious culture has failed to gain as much traction the approach will often be 'OK, let's keep an eye on this for now'. Our approach probably results in a few premature deaths here and there. The American approach results in all heath care being far more expensive than it need be and many patients having to endure unnecessary invasive treatment. That's just health care. You can see the black hand of the litigious culture all over the USA. Its lurking under every stone and creates far more problems that it solves. So, what's the matter with the United States? Too many lawyers!

---

Unfortunately, its not nearly this simple.
In many of the states that have enacted 'tort reform' (which puts caps in place on damages), its become almost impossible for MANY individuals to have their day in court. The expenses to take a matter to trial means that unless your set of facts is an obvious grand slam (pre discovery), many firms will not take the case. The environment in many states has become extremely anti-plaintiff, mainly as a result of a lot of misinformation campaigns by the insurance industry (ie "lawyers sueing is putting doctors out of business"- which is poppycock). So what has happened is a restriction of access for people having their day in court. The discovery process is often the sunlight that gets to the truth in these cases, and due to rather draconian tort reform in the more 'conservative' states, many individuals have no redress when wronged.
I have a friend in Arizona who has practiced both sides of the medical malpractice field (insurance defense and plaintiff counsel), and he basically has to turn away many people who in his opinion have been obviously wronged and will never get their day in court. Who wins out? The shareholders of the insurance companies.

One would think that in states with tort reform, medical insurance costs would DECREASE, but that ironically enough is not what occurs. The insurance companies end up pocketing it as profit.

The problem is not lawyers.
The problem is that we have privatized what should NOT be privatized.
The prime motivator of all private industry is profit. That will always be the bellwether and engine for all decisions. I can think of no arena more appropriate for the government to address than the general health welfare of its citizenry. The U.S. should adopt a single payor approach, or a hybrid system that ensures all its citizens a base level of coverage. Why we even have the concept of private medical insurance boggles my mind. The huge profits enjoyed by the medical insurance industry does nothing to better the public good.

Im all for guitars, automobiles, dishwashers, and telephones competeting with one another in the open market of 'free capitalism'. But whether or not someone receives treamtment for a given ailment? Certainly not. There should be no profit motivator driving these decisions. Its unethical.

Quote Germanicus:

---

The problem is that we have privatized what should NOT be privatized.
The prime motivator of all private industry is profit. That will always be the bellwether and engine for all decisions. I can think of no arena more appropriate for the government to address than the general health welfare of its citizenry. The U.S. should adopt a single payor approach, or a hybrid system that ensures all its citizens a base level of coverage. Why we even have the concept of private medical insurance boggles my mind. The huge profits enjoyed by the medical insurance industry does nothing to better the public good.

---

Good to have you onboard Germanicus. Some would call you a socialist. Not an easy tag to deal with in your country.

Quote Airfix:

---

Quote Germanicus:

---

The problem is that we have privatized what should NOT be privatized.
The prime motivator of all private industry is profit. That will always be the bellwether and engine for all decisions. I can think of no arena more appropriate for the government to address than the general health welfare of its citizenry. The U.S. should adopt a single payor approach, or a hybrid system that ensures all its citizens a base level of coverage. Why we even have the concept of private medical insurance boggles my mind. The huge profits enjoyed by the medical insurance industry does nothing to better the public good.

---

Good to have you onboard Germanicus. Some would call you a socialist. Not an easy tag to deal with in your country.

---

Thanks for the welcome. I definitely have 'socialist' leanings, and consider myself a 'liberal'. Ive worked in corporate america, and seen firsthand the propensity such environments have in compartmentalizing an individuals morale compass. Im not hostile to capitalism, but wary of unregulated markets with weak oversite, and the last 30 years has seen a consistent degradation of government oversite within the U.S, starting with the Reagan administration.

There are just things I dont believe should be left to the private sector (national defense, health care, regulation of the environment). If I had it my way, Id start a federal oil company, and no longer lease our shores sites to private companies. Instead, take all the monies derived from these wells and influx a massive scale general science fund to promote alternate energy research as well a grant/tax break program for businesses invested in solar/wind/geothermal markets. Move towards having solar panels on half the rooftop residences within 10 years or less.

The most obvious things would be:

Mass killing of civillians: probably about 600,000 to 1 million dead in the reprisal attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan after the destruction of the World Trade Centre. None of those killed were directly responsible for what happened to the WTC.

Disregard for international law: the US regards any attempt to put its servicemen on trial as an act of war. This effectively protects them from the International Criminal Court, and shields the US from war crimes trials.

Systemic torture and human rights abuses of suspected enemies

Detention without trial

Judicial murder of its own citizens

Rigging of international treaties so that they have a veto on the output of the World's democratic and financial institutions (the UN, the World Bank, the IMF)

A cultural belief that poverty is visited upon bad people

Religious fundamentalism

An insistence that their domestic laws apply extra-territorialy

The full list is much, much longer, but this will do for now.

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

Following on from your little list Sam, there is also their attitude towards a little country in the Middle East, which can do no wrong in their eyes and has a tendency to provoke it's neighbours and as such is part of the reason for a lot of the current conflict and terrorism we see in the world. The double standard of One rule for us and one rule for everyone else, do have a tendency to wind people up, understandably!

I really do like America, I have the most amazing America friends, and do feel the need sometimes to stick up for it. But, their politics is shocking, sometimes you feel like you want to take it by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shake and say ' do you really really believe this ? or that this is a good idea?' In some senses it is a still an infant nation with a lot of learning to do. Perhaps the rest of the world wasn't a strong enough parent?

--------------------
Neil S. Bruce - www.spencerbruce.com

When is the USA gonna give the Native Americans their land back...?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

When is the USA gonna give the Native Americans their land back...?

---

Just after a gaggle European countries give England back to the Celts.

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Doesn't sound like Gibson are out of the firing line yet !
They are being sued for $2 bil by Apple for having the patented "rounded corners" on their guitars .

I'll get my coat .............

Quote brucie:

---

Following on from your little list Sam, there is also their attitude towards a little country in the Middle East, which can do no wrong in their eyes and has a tendency to provoke it's neighbours and as such is part of the reason for a lot of the current conflict and terrorism we see in the world. The double standard of One rule for us and one rule for everyone else, do have a tendency to wind people up, understandably!

I really do like America, I have the most amazing America friends, and do feel the need sometimes to stick up for it. But, their politics is shocking, sometimes you feel like you want to take it by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shake and say ' do you really really believe this ? or that this is a good idea?' In some senses it is a still an infant nation with a lot of learning to do. Perhaps the rest of the world wasn't a strong enough parent?

---

Can't defend, won't defend. However I think there is some evidence that things might be changing, at least a little. Firstly the Jewish vote in the US has reduced from about 5% to nearer 2% over the past decades. This means the Jewish lobby has considerably reduced fire power in DC these days. There is also a growing voice that is saying the old entrenched position is serving the USA no use in the changing dynamics of the Middle East. There have certainly been some op-ed's in the NYT to that effect recently (hardly new). But what is new is that larger numbers of people in Israel are themselves now voicing this view. I hope that's the direction of travel. But I agree, that issue has most certainly been at the centre of some very low points in American foreign policy. The others often being associated with cold war paranoia. I'm not a big fan of Hilary Clinton but I have to admit she has been quite effective on her watch as Secretary of State. There is generally less of what you elude to that anyone can complain about in the past four years (not nothing, just less) and few major clangers. I wonder if we could have said that about either Condalisa Rice or Colin Powell had they not had Rumsfeld and Cheyne puling their strings? As it turned out we can't. I actually do have a sneaking respect for both Rice and Powell, and suspect it was not they who were the black hand behind the Neo-Con ideology. Whereas both Rumsfeld and Cheyne both served in previous administrations, in Rumsfeld's case as far back as President Ford and Cheyne President Nixon. Their ideologies was seeped in the Cold War paranoia and the height of Zionist deferral. They were the one's who needed shaking warmly by the throat...

Just for the record TE Lawrence remains my all time greatest British hero!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Rumsfeld and Cheyne both served in previous administrations, in Rumsfeld's case as far back as President Ford

---

That does go back a bit - credit where credit is due, Rumsfeld put up pictures of John Wayne and Cheyne shot his friends while out shooting with friends - and then Walker Bush came off the gin - but that's another story - oh god he played golf so well and danced like Adolf. Rich and charming! I wish i could have married him and changed the nature of the USA, Me and Walker. We could have changed the world.

Quote Frisonic:

---

Can't defend, won't defend. However I think there is some evidence that things might be changing, at least a little. Firstly the Jewish vote in the US has reduced from about 5% to nearer 2% over the past decades. This means the Jewish lobby has considerably reduced fire power in DC these days.

---

Hmmm, is it only ever about numbers though? Isn't influence as much about access, position and funding? There are numerous examples around the world of groups holding sway over and above the numbers in terms of population. Does the jewish lobby have more influence than the black lobby?

I don't know the answers by the way!

--------------------

Quote Folderol:

---

Quote feline1:

---

When is the USA gonna give the Native Americans their land back...?

---

Just after a gaggle European countries give England back to the Celts.

---

Oh yeah, I forgot, genocide doesn't count if it's older than 20 years.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~