[aclug-L] Re: Richard Reid

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:20:46PM -0600, Tom Hull wrote:
> 
> My apologies for continuing this thread, especially to Scott Rarden,
> whose very different response is equally valid. But Michael Moore's

Feel free to interrupt a flamewar with insight anytime :-)  I found your
post most interesting and thoughtful.

> One such problem is that the U.S. has gone deep into hock to support its
> bloated world-wide military, while the rest of the relatively well-to-do
> nations have cut back and steered clear from debilitating wars. The U.S.

That is a key point, and one worth developing a bit.  Many Americans are
proud and get a sense of security from having military spending far in
excess of any other nation; yet it is really something I feel embarrassed
by.

> Materialism is a rather imprecise, misleading code-word here. It's mostly
> used by people on the religious right (Muslims, Christians, Jews; I don't
> know but I'd bet that there are Hindus who are worked up over it too) to
> disparage a supposed loss of spiritual values in capitalist society. Some

As a religious person, but not a "religious right" one, I might say that I
have somewhat different view of materialism that is distinct from whether or
not a society is capitalist.  Basically, I think that there are better ways
to achieve happiness and fulfillment in life than always having the latest
car, the best house, most powerful computer, etc.  It's not solely a
religious position, either.

> of us unreligious types actually think it's a pretty good thing. But to

It sounds like you might be talking about a rising standard of living, which
I agree is a good thing.  Though I might take this opportunity to point out
that many countries have a higher standard of living than the US.

> But the point that I really have to take exception to is the idea that
> terrorists even could "come and destroy us" -- I really can't believe
> that such a small and pathetic group could do any real damage, except
> by provoking the U.S. government into acts of insanity.

Which may have been the point.

> (then) have the reputation as an unfair or unreasonable power. Things

I'd be interested to hear your comparison of the US to the British Empire. 
Seems that the British seem to be in constant agreement with the US on
anything related to military action, but I can't really find a convincing
explanation as to why.

> BTW, "The Ugly American" had nothing to do with Hitler. It refers to
> the tendency of post-WWII American tourists to disrespect foreign and
> native customs and peoples, the casual arrogance of a people who think
> they're God's gift to the world.

I might advance that this attitude is not limited to tourists, nor to
Americans.

-- John
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi