Another comment I want to memorialize in the main text

[morsefan]

The thing about discussions about "human rights" (let us now bow down and worship at the altar!) is there actually is something called the law of human rights that has content. There are procedures for unpacking questions like "What is or should be recognized as a human right?" "Who has authority to enforce a human right and when?" "How do we know

Comments

[morsefan]

Oh, I actually think it's possible some have lost their marbles. Seriously.

Or all this defensiveness may be deep down fear.

Or, maybe they think they could somehow cajole us into enforcing the worldview they want, but honestly, why would they think we would do that? Well, probably because we've done it before, but those were very specialized circumstances (when we were looking out for our interests, too -- wink!) and now when they accuse us of selfishness, it's because they are trying to shame us into working antithetically to our own interests, and probably theirs, too, though they don't see that.

Funny, one of these European dudes was trying to tell me how divided the U.S. is (after someone else had tried to argue Europeans are so much more ideologically different from each other than Americans are -- pick an argument and stick with it, please!). What I see coming down the pike, maybe not in the next election cycle in particular, but generally, is that our willingness to accept their worldview is dying. It really is amazing how little angst there has been over all the screwups related to the Iraq war and some of the more gruesome aspects of the war on terror as presented in the MSM. The culture wars are very, very serious, too. As soon as you think you have the world figured out, it cracks up, but I don't think there will ever be a majority for the European worldview in the United States again. John Kerry was the high watermark. I don't know how the Bush presidency will be measured, but we turned that corner again. There will be irritation about "competent military operations" and plenty of Democratic presidents, but stuff like what came out of Iran today and this cultural stuff will remind enough Americans what we really need to worry about at least in the near to mid-term. What I see down the horizon, though, Supe, is that there are a few too many really kooky types on our side of the aisle, too.

It's probably worth some time (like either of us have it) and go back and look at the post-WWII hegemony and see what in the world anyone was thinking at that time about how the U.N., for example, was going to keep the peace. Really get a solid sense of that. Of course, I think several things happened quickly that no one expected: the breakup of the British Empire, which had been a stabilizing force in the world, and the Cold War. Those two may have destroyed everything before it had a chance to get started.

[burningblue]

You know, I have to say that you are one of my absolutely favorite people on LJ!

Your posts are a breath of fresh air in a world filled with stupidity!

[morsefan]

I think that's a kind thing to say (LOL!)! I have been so glad to read so many of the interesting articles you had been posting recently. I'm back to getting a lot of my news from LJ, but I'm lucky that I have so many good sources.

[sorceror]

I always find it ironic when Europeans criticize the US. The French gov't in particular. How can they say or imply that the US is imperialistic and interfering? France maintained its own colonial empire well into the 20th century, and did not give it up gladly (less gracefully than the British, that's for sure)?

And I was darkly amused when, after some French commentators seemed to take an extraordinarily arrogant and condescending attitude toward the election of President Bush in 2000 (characterizing him as a right-wing loony), the next French election was a run-off between Chirac and Jean-Marie LePen. And most recently, there have been the French outlawing of religious symbols in schools, and the racial riots.

I just don't understand it.

[sorceror]

Oh -- also, on your point about capital punishment: this isn't the first time some Europeans have sanctimoniously condemned an execution in the US. What astonishes (and angers) me about it is not their opposition itself, but the absurd extents to which some people will go in characterizing the US as evil for executing CONVICTED MURDERERS.

I mean, c'mon.

[morsefan]

I'm against capital punishment, but it's low on my food chain of important issues.

[morsefan]

I sense "a lack of a full grip on reality" is probably the explanation. And the psychology makes sense. Britain dealt with it better, but living there in the 1970s, the understanding that "we don't count much anymore" was clearly hard for them to take, and they took it out on us. Well some did. It was sort of bound to be that way. I do actually understand that.

What interested in me in the Kagan article to which I linked earlier, is that I did not know how testy relations between the U.S. and Europe were becoming under Clinton, and really how sick of them all Madeleine Albright had become. She said some things that were a lot less diplomatic than our dear current president, that's for sure. This is a relationship that has not gone well since the end of the Cold War, and given the fight over nuclear weapons in the Reagan Administration, was almost in the breaking down stages even then.

One thing for which I always give the British -- and this was Labour party, so mark it down as a red letter day -- great credit, was the honesty with themselves that they could not continue managing the empire, and trying to gracefully get it handed off to others. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anyone else, and I respect it. It's not easy to come to terms with that kind of stuff, but especially when you are in power essentially for the first time, trying to make massive reforms of an almost revolutionary nature after a World War, It deserves a gold star, that's for sure.