Tim Blair

Actually, the reason he's feeling queasy is that he's picking up on the vibe from sea to shining sea that WE HATE THE DAMN GUARDIAN LIKE POISON AND WISH THEY WOULD DIE.

Oh, and thanks for providing those lovely email addresses. I have this personal conceit that it was my email specifically that caused them to call off the whole show in Ohio.

Sounds like the only time he doesn't have a queasy feeling is when they have elections in Cuba. So make you last vote count, kids!

I thought after all of that prior nonsense the Guardian decided to publish -- and attempting to meddle in the US elections -- that it might be entertaining to see the list of TV characters the Brits feel ought to be the US President.
Considering that list gives me a queasy feeling.

You know what gives me a queasy feeling?

Leftist Gaurdian editors who think they have the right to screw around with our elections.

You know what makes me get over it? Watching the reactions from Bubba in Ohio- "Sir Green Teeth wants me to vote Kerry? I was undecided, now it's a no brainer. Four more years."

Morons.

I'd contribute a pithy comment, but I'm too busy picking my teeth with the fibula of a two year-old Ethiopian famine victim.

I'm enjoying Mr. Freedland's discomfort and heartily wishing him a good spew.

Perhaps we on the right in America could, I dunno, send the Guardian a few thousand letters encouraging them to stick a finger down Freedland's throat...? Apparently that's the way things are done these days....

I think Freedland and other foreigners are overreacting. The fear of some kind of Christian Fundamentalist takeover in America is overblown, they don't see that there is plenty of political diversity amongst Christians. Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, which is a much more stringent sect than Bush's Methodists. Another telling detail is that Bush has never directly answered a question about his beliefs concerning evolution. He is not a creationist, and has avoided the issue because he doesn't want to piss off the Pat Robertson crowd. If it were not for the war, and the often frankly disloyal, sometimes even treasonous discourse of the hard Left/Hollywood/Michael Moore set, many fundamentalists would be skeptical of Bush's Christian credentials. The real Bush isn't the man either his supporters or his critics would have us think he is. He stood in those ruins with the bullhorn, and I think he decided then and there he was going to get those bastards, all of them, whether they struck first or not. He has bungled parts of the job, no doubt. However, he will fight, to the bitter end, because once his mind is made up, that's it. You might as well try to negotiate with a hurricane or a volcano. This kind of stubborness galls the Euros to no end, but it is familiar to any American who ever had a tough, no-nonsense grandfather. That's why I think he will win it, and then he may wish he hadn't, because everything that's happening now is only going to get worse before it gets better. But there will be no religious dictatorship here, the Guardian and all those sorts are just blowing hot air.

Here it comes again, that sinking feeling... Now I have that same queasy feeling

This man is eating too many fish tacos.

I am amazed (though not surprised) at the number of foreigners who are convinced that fascism has been on the march here since 9-11 and Mordor is rising when the changes have been extraordinarily small and measured-- yes, they've made flying shockingly inconvenient, but part of the reason for that is that we haven't rounded up the Muslims and put them in camps, in fact we can't even bring ourselves to question them before they fly, one way. I mean, three years after 9-11 name the country where they've outlawed Muslim head scarves in schools. It ain't this one.

Well, I must have thoroughly flummoxed Mr. Freedland with my last e-mail, as he has stopped sending me insults. What's really amazing is that he hasn't a clue. About anything. Really. No clue about Christianity. No clue about honesty. And certainly, he hasn't the slightest inkling of what makes America tick.
Well, what do you expect from a "subject"? His socialist agenda is the same that helped Hitler. Now they're helping Arafat and his ilk. Go figure.

Why do I get this feeling that Mr. Freedland is one of those people who has to get out a flashlight (torch, to you other Anglospherians) and check under his bed for monsters before he goes to sleep at night?

"Now it's a deep concern about what is happening to the US itself. "

Too right! Freedland's real problem is that he fears Senator Kerry will lose, and The New Fascist State will arise from the ashes of America, while the minions of BusHitler trod upon the unwashed masses with their custom made jack boots. That's not going to happen. I don't expect sweetness and light after this election, but I believe that -- in the long term -- western civilization is better served by have President Bush in the White House, and not "President" Kerry.

So get a life, Freedland! Touch reality now and then. Ease back on the Valium, and increase the lithium, for a better balance. You'll feel better about yourself in the long run.

Wouldn't it be easier for somebody at the Guardian to type the word "moan," copy it, and then just hold down Ctrl+V until the whole edition is filled up?

No, you see, that we might actually prevail and leave Europe to the shrinking morass of a hellhole it is becoming is what scares him. If we are successful in exporting democracy to the middle east, where will they have left to try and influence the world? He is probably just a EU weenie and upset. Of course if Kerry wins, the demographic time bomb set to go off in most European countries in 25 years will have him praising Allah. I hope he doesn't mind about that religious possibility. Of course if he doesn't like that prospect he won't lose his head. Well, probably he won't.

Anybody want to take bets on whether Freedland is admitting who he works for in his travels? If he is, I would love to hear the commentary he's getting from average Americans about his paper's letter writing campaign and Breeder's comments......as soon as I make sure all small children are out of earshot, wouldn't want them learning any new bad words.

I wonder if that queasy feeling is from realizing that if Bush wins he helped it happen?

"Next is September 11, which has been all but sanctified in American discourse. Because of that event, the US has re-imagined itself as a victim nation..."
Wow. I never knew what a re-imagining felt like. And all those killed and affected by 9-11, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, and the African embassy bombings. You were previously not a victim, but because of the Halliburton-contracted "Re-Imagining Machine" tm you are now elevated to victim status.
How much does this guy get paid?

Having a good time talking to each other?

There were no WMD.
There was no Al-Queda/Iraq link.
US Economy stagnant.
The US now a figure of hate around the world.

But then, facts don't matter when you're so damn sure of your righteousness, do they?

Arguing won't matter when you don't leave a real email address.

Maybe he get his little sinking feeling from looking at the polls. Because quite frankly Kerry has done a good job, as good as you can expect from a lawyer proving his case. But maybe that´s exactly the problem ? this aint about the spot as defense or prosecutor, it´s about a presidency.

There were no WMD.

Sure there were. Read the Duelfer report. While we were dicking around with Kerry's UN, they were moved to Syria.

There was no Al-Queda/Iraq link.

Sure there was. Read the Congressional investigation. Saddam may not have had anything to do with 911, but he was sponsoring his very own AQ affiliate up in Kurdistan for the purpose of disrupting the Kurds.

US Economy stagnant.

Nope. Growing nicely, thank you. You want stagnant, look at France or Germany, with structural employment 2 -3 times that of the US.

The US now a figure of hate around the world.

Not like when an international conspiracy put 3000 Americans in their graves in half an hour, eh?

The US economy is by no means stagnant, if it was, how is it that our GDP is growing?

And the whole hate thing.... A lot of countries around the world already hated the U.S., but now it's the popular thing to hate America, so all the envious bastards are coming out of the closet.

There were no WMD. ( No but Saddam was there )
There was no Al-Queda/Iraq link. ( erhm ? Zarqawi ? )
US Economy stagnant. ( It´s improving again. )
The US now a figure of hate around the world. ( I seen American Flags burn since Khomenei, heard left wingers cursing the US / praising either Soviet or Islam since I was a child - nothing extra ordinary happened except a new fascist ideology is being challenged )

No worries. He'll feel much queasier shortly. 83.9% of the world will. And we shall be glad rejoice in it.

Hey Mike,

Here's a dime, buy a clue would you?

Husseins Philanthropy of Terror.

Oh, God, another sneering, condescending article about America written by a lefty Briton who knows absolutely nothing about America, her people, her values, nor her unique responsibilities in the world. It would be fun to refute every one of these fatuous assertions one-by-one - and the article is an embarrassment of riches in that regard - but I'm not sure there's enough bandwidth on this site. I'll pick one zinger:

"Next is September 11, which has been all but sanctified in American discourse. Because of that event, the US has re-imagined itself as a victim nation"

Sanctified, eh? Aside from the horror of watching 3,000 non-combatants (including 67 Brits) being savagely murdered before our very eyes, September 11 unambiguously demonstrated to the entire world that the Islamofascists will do absolutely anything to kill as many Westerners as they can. Still unconvinced, Mr. Freedland? Remember the Bali massacre, where happy young women celebrating a wedding were blown to bits? Remember women terrorists in Beslan murdering small schoolchildren? Remember now, Mr. Freedland?

Imagined victimhood, eh? After September 11 we Americans got off our butts, buried our dead, built a Coalition of the Willing, and put it to the Taliban in Afghanistan within six weeks. Not exactly the stuff of a professional victim nation.

As the wonderful Eric Hoffer wrote, "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

Is it asking too much for lefty Britons simply to fuck off and mind their own meaningless business? America has some hard, meaningful business to attend to. We don't need boorish, intrusive, presumptuous, impertinent, unsolicited letter-writing campaigns to the gentle folk of southeastern Ohio. We don't need Homer Simpson in the Oval office. We don't need the misguided opinions of the British Left. We're busy!

Please, at long last, just fuck off. Got it? Sheesh!

There were no WMD

Just yesterday the NYT was screaming that 380 tons of nuclear triggers are missing in Iraq. They breathlessly reported that the missing explosives were so powerful that a mere pound could bring down an airliner. The missing materials could be used to "shatter buildings."

"What is happening is that the US is holding an election. Terrible, I know, but what can you do?"

You are so witty, Mr. Blair. Some time ago (year and a half) I exchanged some email with Mr. Freedland after he checked my pedigree and was sufficently impressed. Then he found my opinions were no longer BCBG and went silent. So it goes at the bastion of free expression.

What a dork.

I think there is something happening in the US that should worry people, the extreme polarization. It is quite incredible that such a huge country should be so evenly divided between 2 parties; maybe this is why the rhetoric has ratcheted so high. I hope that after the elections people can start to cool down a bit (assuming they accept the results...).

Freedland reminds of that great quote:

"Fascism is always falling over America, and it always lands with a thud in Europe".

Freeland is a moron. He once opened an essay with the outrageous statement that in the build-up to WWII all of England was united. No, numb nuts, all of England was not united, the leftist dipshits wanted to let Hitler steam roll your country.

What perfectsense said! Yeah!

I get the impression that everything and everyone in America give Freedland a queasy feeling. I'm sure his digestion would impove covering elections in Cuba or Zimbabwe.

Yeah, perfect sense, but that's hardly "mass destruction".

It's only "large destruction." which would make it "WLD"

See? No WMD!

Why is it that the Dark Night of Fascism is always descending on America, but keeps on landing on Europe?

Old Europe has lost its soul. I don't know exactly when it happened; maybe it was when the French turned over their Jews to the Germans. Maybe it was when they started letting in Muslims, one at a time, to collect their garbage. Maybe it was when collectively they decided that Christianity was nonsense. We stood strong for them for 50 years against the Communists; after 9/11, when we needed them they were too busy taking Saddam's backdoor money.

To Hell with them. We see now what they have become. Get the UN out of my country, and tell the soul less Europeans to house it. The only people in that part of the world worth a damn anymore are east of the Danube. The Austrians are all right and so are the peoples to the east including some of the ex-soviets. The rest of them can go to hell.

Quent...re: "Yeah, perfect sense, but that's hardly "mass destruction"."

The IAEA had marked the explosives as potential nuclear weapon triggers. What we are looking for is COMPONENTS of WMDs, not just completed arsenals (which seems to be what the MSM has a brainlock on!). And that is exactly what this stuff was.

And it was missing before our soldiers ever got there. IOW, Saddam hid it somewhere.

Now why on earth would the one thing in that bunker that could be used in a nuclear weapon be the one and only thing that vanished?

If you aren't worried by now you should be!

Nony Mouse's link explains, at long last, why the Daily Wanker targeted Springfield, Ohio: they want Homer Simpson to be President.

That imbecile in the sound truck who thinks science belongs to Democrats should have been pelted with genetically-modified tomatoes.

"how long can these two competing world views, so far apart from each other and so sharply divided, coexist in the same country?

Mr. Freedland clearly knows nothing about actual Americans. We may bicker among ourselves, but try sending letters teeling us who to vote for and find out exactly how we coexist in the same country.

All together now:

"onward Christian Soldiers,
marching as to war..."

Quentin,

Darn I didn't read the fine print! Never mind then, these explosives can only kill hundreds of thousands of people- not millions required to invoke the Kerry/UN WMD warning label.

Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, which is a much more stringent sect than Bush's Methodists.

Oh, I don't know. Methodism was pretty stringent when I was in it: no drinking, no dancing, no gambling, no card-playing, attendance twice on Sundays. Good music, but. That all went out the door when the namby-pamby Uniting Church got up (in Australia).

The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Heh. They keep leaving out "... as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free ..."

Reflections on the U.S Civil War should really get him queasy, Richard. Like this

'The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." '

and this

"It sounds like a sort of religious fanaticism that would make the mild Methodist George W Bush hide under the bed-covers. Yet that is how the Northerners sang as off to war they marched: "He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat/He is sifting out the souls of men before his judgment seat/O be swift my soul to answer Him, be jubilant my feet!"

"A noteworthy conclusion is that America fought the bloodiest war in its history (and a bloodier war than any in Western Europe since 1648) in order to prevent an imperialist war, that is, out of fanatical religious principle. Americans find it too painful to think about; should they by some means re-establish the frame of mind of 1860, may God help their enemies. "

And this, for background.

And Bush is of the party of Lincoln.

The lights are going out all over Britain tonight.

And idiots like Freeland are putting them out.

The usual boatload of sanctimony and hysteria is bad enough, but what jumped out at me was this:

Because of that event, the US has re-imagined itself as a victim nation: witness the yellow-ribbon bumper-stickers, usually bearing the slogan "Support America". (Ribbons were previously reserved for the suffering: red for AIDS, pink for breast cancer.)

Was there no fact-checker at The Guardian who could have told Freedland that yellow ribbons were first used in 1990 during Gulf War I, and were a reference to a line in a song?

I found this quote interesting:

"Because of that event [referring to 9/11], the US has re-imagined itself as a victim nation: witness the yellow-ribbon bumper-stickers, usually bearing the slogan "Support America". (Ribbons were previously reserved for the suffering: red for AIDS, pink for breast cancer.)"

It's certainly not a "big lie" but it's another little fact that supports the contention that Freedland doesn't know or understand much of the country of which he speaks. Yellow ribbons have a long symbolic history in the US that predates by years the red AIDS ribbon and the pink breast cancer ribbon. In fact, here's a story, from the BBC no less, explaining that the red AIDS ribbon created in 1991 was directly inspired by the use of yellow ribbons in the U.S. as a symbol of support during the Gulf War.

"We thought of using ribbon," says Allan, "because we'd had just gone through the Gulf War and observed that Americans in small towns were willing to visibly express their support for soldiers by putting up yellow ribbon." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3250251.stm

The pink breast cancer ribbon was also created in 1991. http://www.pinkribbon.com/

The yellow ribbons displayed during the Gulf War were nothing new in fact. Twelve years previously, during the Iranian hostage crisis that began in 1979, yellow ribbons were displayed to symbolize support for the American diplomats held hostage there for 444 days. For that is the meaning of the yellow ribbons to Americans, they symbolize support for faraway loved ones in harm's way who's safe return is dreamed of. They are not and have never been symbols of suffering, but rather of hope.

Their use in that regard was no doubt a consequence of the song popularized in 1973 by Tony Orlando and Dawn called "Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Old Oak Tree". In that song a convict released from prison tells his wife in a letter that if, after what he's done, she still wants him back that she should tie a yellow ribbon around an oak tree that his bus will pass by. If he doesn't see the ribbon, he'll just keep riding. But if he sees it, he'll know she wants him to come home and he'll get off the bus and return to her. So even though it's in a completely different context, the message is the same, yellow ribbons mean "welcome home." Anyone interested in a more academic, somewhat dry look at the yellow ribbon as a symbol, going back centuries, can check out this report http://www.loc.gov/folklife/ribbons/ribbons.html

This is not rocket science and is something very commonly understood in the U.S. Many other events, large and small, have seen the appearance of yellow ribbons in this regard. I'm sure many of you already know the song so even if you didn't know the particulars it's probably no great surprise. For someone counting on Freedland to give them an informed, nuanced report on life in America, his utter ignorance of this fairly simple fact should not inspire confidence in the rest of his report. Maybe he needs a bit more seasoning before he speaks. Perhaps de Tocqueville could give him some pointers on how it's done.

Great post, Larry.

You're right: in the Battle Hymn of the Republic they almost always change
"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free" to "As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free" (whatever that's supposed to mean in a battle hymn).

They sang the original version at that moving service after Sept 11 at the National Cathedral. Seems our Republican president knows what we're up against.

If Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya are what we can do when we envision ourselves as victims, imagine what we could do if we visualized ourselves as pissed off!

On to Paris!

Dang. And I was looking forward to those custom-made jackboots. Jodphurs, too...

Don't forget the breeches and Sam Browne belts, mojo! With a swagger stick. If you're gonna be crushing dissent, you gotta dress the part.

"Battle Hymn of the Republic" was sung by the choir at Ronald Reagan's funeral. Outstanding.

I could never have thought of anything more appropriate to honour the great Cold Warrior.

At Mr Freedland's funeral: "Fool on the Hill", or "Green Green Teeth of Home"?

re: "the US has re-imagined itself as a victim nation"

Wow, so now a lefty journalist tells us that imagining yourself to be a victum (nevermind the actual veracity of that statement) is a bad thing? That's not what they've been pushing for the last 35 years. I guess the US under Dubya has the awesome power of toppling even the most sacred lefty dogmas.

Now I have that same queasy feeling - except this time it's not only about the simple matter of who will win and who will lose on November 2. Now it's a deep concern about what is happening to the US itself.

That's why I'm queeeeezy....I'm queezy like a Sunday morning...ah yeah yeah yeah.

Don't take yourself so seriously Freedland, soon, you will be one of us.

mwahahahahahahaha....

Regarding the yellow ribbons, I seem to recall that they were also used as some sort of symbol to acknowledge the plight of the Iranian Embassy Detainees (sometime in the 80's???)

I could be wrong, as I was but a boy back then, but...?

Anyway, I'm sure the world doesn't hate ALL Americans, just the radical and extreme outspoken ones. They do exist, and are usually the ones to appear on the news around the world....

You know the ones, they shoot a school yard full of students, they tie grants (to impoverished nations) to the condition that no Birth Control is implemented, or they try to convince (nay force) the world - via the U.N - to outlaw all forms of Stem-Cell research with said sovereign countries borders.

There are bad eggs in every pile!

Oh yes, Fatty, heaven forbid that any country giving out foreign aid should have the gall, the unmitigated audacity to actually expect that the country receiving the gift actually do somthing that conforms to the giving country's beliefs. How Terrible! Can't the Americans (and Aussies)just give the money without any strings? Those international aid payments aren't just going to skim themselves you know.

Read Lileks today, on Andrew Sullivan - ranting, angry, superb fisking.

"...as bipartisan as the cold war..." - I can't believe he said that. Now I feel old - if I can remember political discourse during the cold war, and Andrew Sullivan can't.

And vale John Peel - he might have like The Fall too much, and been a wet lefty wanker, but everyone is entitled to a few weaknesses.

Bluie,

I agree. If a country doesn't like a set of values enough to want to change them, then they shouldn't bother giving them money tied to said changes, should they?

Australia -in a smaller fashion - does this too, but the US is the big player here. The Birth Control (rather, the lack thereof) is particularly worrisome, as it continues the path of poverty for these little countries. That is without mentioning the other (sort of associated) topic of AIDS i.e. not allowing Condom publicity etc etc.

American religous fundamentalism meets consumerism. Can't you see that if you have less, but far healthier and affluent consumers you will REALLY be able to skim the profits?

hmmmmmmm?

Any news on the "Yellow Ribbon" issue?????

Fat_Pat, you seem to be operating under some old misconceptions. Most of the countries we give aid to are much more conservative on matters like birth control than the US.

...then is there a need to stress it? Or is there some sort of agenda to internally placate the religous extremists within the US?

No one is placating "religious extremists" here. (By the way, a "religious extremist" is not someone who goes to church every Sunday and actually believes in God. Just for the record.)

By the way, you don't communicate very clearly. What "it" are you talking about being "stressed"?

The american state shouldn't be handing out taxpayers money to non-taxpayers in other states for nothing useful to American taxpayersin exchange. Why can't other countries just stop their foreign aid addiction and rely on charity instead?

Was there no fact-checker at The Guardian who could have told Freedland that yellow ribbons were first used in 1990 during Gulf War I, and were a reference to a line in a song?

I think Fat_Pat is right about one thing - I remember the yellow ribbons during the Tehran hostage crisis. And I remember that bloody awful Tony Orlando song that inspired it too. One of the few 70's music crimes that couldn't be blamed on disco. He's still alive - and could be recording a single right now! People, this is more important than WMD.

DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT"S TOO LATE!!!

For more on the history of the yellow ribbon see my previous (somewhat long) post above. In summary, the yellow ribbon was in use long before the Gulf War, long before the AIDS ribbon, and long before the breast cancer ribbon.

But here's one more point regarding Freedland'statement. He quotes the yellow ribbons as being printed with the words "Support America". That didn't seem right to me yesterday and when I was at the store a few minutes ago my thoughts were confirmed. What I remember, and what I saw with my own eyes on car in the parking lot, was a ribbon that said "Support Our Troops". The message of the yellow ribbon is and always has been one of support for loved ones overseas. It's not about the country as a whole and certainly not about the victims of September 11. It's about supporting our brothers, fathers, mothers, daughters, etc. who are separated from us in these dangerous times. It's a very personal message.

Maybe the ribbons are different in Ohio but I'd be surprised. I suspect Mr. Freedland just doesn't see the distinction.

As far as yellow ribbons being in use long before the Gulf War, that's true. However, from what I read, people are using them as a substitute for Bush/Cheney signs to avoid their cars being vandalised.

This might not be a nice thing to say, but I hope that on November 3rd, Mr. Freedland is so queasy that he spends the entire day projectile vomiting.

I know you Aussies have lots of colorful terms for vomiting... :-)

Mr. Freedland: Drop dead.
People like you give your country a bad name.

Fat Pat... there are legitimate concerns about stem cell research. The fact is that MOST legitimate stem cell researchers in the US say that they are getting better results with ADULT stem cells than with embryonic ones. It is appearing that there is NO NEED to tie the stem cell situation with abortion, which is exactly what the left in the US is trying to do.

Further, there IS stem cell research going on in the US. The "ban" on stem cell research is a ban against giving government funds to the projects that use embryonic cells. Private researchers are doing it on their own, without government funding, so there really is no need for it in any case. Since money given to support other countries would be government funds, THAT is the reason for the ban against countries receiving funding from the US using it for that purpose.

"I agree. If a country doesn't like a set of values enough to want to change them, then they shouldn't bother giving them money tied to said changes, should they? "

Another option would be not giving them money. I mean, if we are going to pour money into some disease ridden, impoverished, run down, hell hole with no prospect of the people bootstrapping themselves out of the Third World, and expect no improvements in return, why bother with the money in the first place?

We can keep the money reight here in the States, and hire people like Fat_Pat (at taxpayer expense, natch) to tell everyone what a bunch of bag eggs we are.

Sounds like heaven, eh, Fat_Pat? You could be paid big bucks to be a sneering, condescending, know-it-all asshole, worshipped by the unwashed masses, instead of volunteering your services on the INTERNET.

Andrea, I define religous extremists as people who go too far.... perhaps some of those mis-guided but pious people who set off bombs at the front of abortion clinics? Exchange clinic for school/cafe/police station in Israel/Iraq/Indonesia and perhaps they can be defined as religous extremist?

If some sections of the community wish to flag various groups of terrorists under the banner of religon, then maybe it makes sense to have a look in their own backyard. Maybe the odd high-court (or was it supreme court?) judge should be made to account for his own blatant disregard for the separation of state laws in his own district?

Anyway, maybe I come across as more reactionary than I really am?

I dislike anyone imposing their views upon me, which is why I am annoyed by George W attempting to impose bans/limitations upon other countries for things like stem-cell research etc. via the U.N.

Real Jeffs, I actually meant to say to NOT give any money, rather than tie it to restrictions IF you must give. Give freely of your charity or not at all. Assuming you are American, maybe you have been "stung" by a lot of anti-american sentiment, but I don't recall having a stab at Americans for their attitude, just some of the moralising that certain folk try to put out, like GWB (via grant restrictions), I'm sure most Americans are quite moderate, and very normal people, yes?

Again on the stem-cell issue. I am no scientist, but am an intereted though not highly informed poster, but the feel I get is that the vast majority of the scientific community are not fussed about any ethical considerations WRT embryonic stem-cells. That tells me that they support the usage of said stem-cells. Many authoritive articles talk of the greater benefits that are to be gained in their usage c/f ADULT stem-cells. The folk that oppose their usage (embryonic cell, that is) are - to me - generally on the political right (with me on some issues!) and also - in some instances - aligned to the religious groups that put their hat into the ring.

The fact that a significant majority of scientists see no ethical issues tells me more than any number of politicians AND clergy/lay folk. I am no conspiracy theorist, so will always take the scientists view on this issue.

"perhaps some of those mis-guided but pious people who set off bombs at the front of abortion clinics?"

Where I come from we call those people "criminals" and put them in jail if we catch them. Are you equating George Bush with an abortion clinic bomber? I really don't understand what you are getting at here. As for

"I dislike anyone imposing their views upon me, which is why I am annoyed by George W attempting to impose bans/limitations upon other countries for things like stem-cell research etc. via the U.N."

One: I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please link to some article or cite your source for this?

Two: you are not "other countries," but yourself, an individual. I don't see what your likes and dislikes have to do with one government's policies towards another country or countries. I don't like canned asparagus but I don't sit around resenting the fact that other people eat this awful, slimy substance. Really, this is just bizarre to me: the idea that people sit around simmering with rage because a policy decision by the government of another country reminds them of some personal beef of theirs.

"Real Jeffs, I actually meant to say to NOT give any money, rather than tie it to restrictions IF you must give. Give freely of your charity or not at all ..... I don't recall having a stab at Americans for their attitude, just some of the moralising that certain folk try to put out, like GWB (via grant restrictions)..."

Your phrasing was poor, I agree. But your attitude is unchanged, and premise incorrect.

See, "charity" is the "provision of help or relief to the poor" (according to www.dictionary.com). The money that goes to other countries is not "charity". It's tax money going overseas as "international aid".

The difference here is that charity comes from an individual voluntarily, and either goes to a needy person or an institution for distribution. When I give money to the Salvation Army or Red Cross, that's charity.

Taxes are seldom voluntary. People pay it begrudgingly (unless you are a follower of Chris Sheil, that is). That money is then spent according to the decisions of the government that ripped it out of the wallets of their citizens.

In this case, "international aid" is in fact a diplomatic tool, given there to support an ally, withheld held to punish a foolish government. And a very common one. The Soviet Union used to lavish their version on their fanatical client states (Cuba and North Korea, to mention a couple) when they "purchased" agricultural products in exchange for military hardware, oil, and technology. The USA has used it as well, only we use it a carrot-and-stick to change behavior. Sort of like rewarding someone with a bonus in their paycheck.

Therefore, assigning conditions to the use of the aid is perfectly acceptable. It's like a school loan or a grant, given for a specific purpose. You have to go to school; you can't buy a car or jet off to the Riveria.

That's because having a stable region (economically, industrially, and militaryily) is a Good Thing; the trouble makers are less likely to rise up in revolution and start wars throughout the region.

The USA is not a charitable institution. Check out the international aid distribution someimes, and note who gets more money.

So taking President Bush to task for his conditions is silly; if nothing else, we've been doing this for several generations. Since before WWI, I think. Certainly before President Bush was born.

So don't feed me this dreck about "charity". You don't want charity -- you want handouts, under your terms. And on my dime, while you sneer at me.

And that's why you are an asshole.

Hey asshole, I don't want any money from you.

Excellent, Fat_Pat! You get my point, and said so without mega-bandwidth. Thank you.