|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 2, 2016 23:31:58 GMT -5
You have no need to be anything but proud of what you and your family have accomplished, Randle. I would say, however, that intervening, which more than implies an event of temporary duration, as for example the two world wars, is far different from empire-building and colonizing less powerful states, as we did in the Philippines in the early 1900s, and overthrowing another nation's freely elected government, as we did in Iran in the early 50s and Chile in the 70s. Otherwise, we're cool.  I had in mind individuals who have a blanket policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs, like certain brands of libertarianism. While I am sympathetic to some of the reasons why people adopt such a stance, I feel like it would be hypocritical of me to do so given that I have directly benefited from the U.S. not adopting such a policy. Now that being said, I'm very apprehensive of the other extreme as well, including the examples you cite. Those were regrettable incidents that make me wish the U.S. would pursue a policy more akin to the the Prime Directive from Star Trek. There's a definitely a difficult balance to strike. I'm also very much aware that even when appearing to act with the most noble of intentions, the U.S. government rarely has purely altruistic motives, and gets involved only inasmuch as it serves U.S. interests. But regardless of all of that, I'm still very thankful that the U.S. chose to involve itself in Korea, regardless of whatever interests it served or whatever motives the government had. Had they not, it's very likely that I would have grown up under the rule of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung. And if you know what went on in North Korea during the 90s, then you know I'm not being overdramatic in saying that there's a real possibility that I would not be alive -- or if I was alive, that I would be starving to death. God bless the U.S.A. for that. No matter how anyone feels about our involvement in Korea, I am glad that it meant that you got out, and it might well have gratified my father (S/Sgt. 45th Division), who fought there for 11 months in 1951-52. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 3, 2016 3:42:54 GMT -5
Everyone here, since this is a comics site, loves at least one thing about the US, the place where most of the comics we talk about here are made. And I think it's fair to say that American pop culture in general is important to everyone here, looking at the music and movies and tv shows discussed.
I remember saying something like this before, possibly in Confessor's CBR thread, but anyway, for me there's always been two sides to American pop culture, one that fascinated and one that repelled. Since this is the What you love about the USA thread I'll stick to the former.
I love the Marvel comics of the 60s & 70s, Chuck Berry, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Marx Brothers, Elvis Presley, the Twilight Zone, Del Shannon, the original Star Trek, Abbot & Costello, Bob Dylan, the Flamingos, old Hollywood movies, the Carol Burnett Show, comics of the 80s & 90s like Love and Rockets, Lloyd Llewellyn, Eightball, post-classic-Hollywood directors like Kubrick, Altman, Coppola, Scorsese, Tarantino, Lynch, recent tv series like Breaking Bad and Mad Men, ...
Beyond pop culture, it's NASA and the Space Program that is by far their greatest accomplishment, perhaps the greatest - how to express it? - external, physical accomplishment of the human race, period: they put a human being on the moon. We left our planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Mar 3, 2016 3:53:19 GMT -5
“You hate America, don't you?'
That would be as silly as loving it,' I said. 'It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to a human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 6:35:13 GMT -5
It's where I keep all of my stuff. A house is just a place for your stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 3, 2016 10:38:10 GMT -5
Beyond pop culture, it's NASA and the Space Program that is by far their greatest accomplishment, perhaps the greatest - how to express it? - external, physical accomplishment of the human race, period: they put a human being on the moon. We left our planet. So glad someone mentioned this, b/c as I was watching shows on PBS the last two nights about the pre-NASA space program and then Scott Kelly's return form the space station, I was angry at myself for not having included the space program in my post earlier. Angrier on another level, too, because the space program represents something that seemed quintessentially American, for a while anyway: the belief that together we could "pay any price, bear any burden," fear only fear itself and "that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation." Sacrifice, a common purpose, a belief in a purpose greater than each of us as individuals -- these seem to have vanished from our discourse and our image of ourselves as a people and a nation, replaced by a belief that it is our culture is and should be guided by the idea that success is best measured in material wealth, that service and labor should be disdained, that every man for himself is the only way to go. We have never been quite so glorious as we have imagined ourselves -- far too much innocent blood has been spilled when we have lost our way -- but when we have attained our moments of nobility, we have been selfless, courageous and idealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 4, 2016 9:24:30 GMT -5
Beyond pop culture, it's NASA and the Space Program that is by far their greatest accomplishment, perhaps the greatest - how to express it? - external, physical accomplishment of the human race, period: they put a human being on the moon. We left our planet. So glad someone mentioned this, b/c as I was watching shows on PBS the last two nights about the pre-NASA space program and then Scott Kelly's return form the space station, I was angry at myself for not having included the space program in my post earlier. Angrier on another level, too, because the space program represents something that seemed quintessentially American, for a while anyway: the belief that together we could "pay any price, bear any burden," fear only fear itself and "that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation." Sacrifice, a common purpose, a belief in a purpose greater than each of us as individuals -- these seem to have vanished from our discourse and our image of ourselves as a people and a nation, replaced by a belief that it is our culture is and should be guided by the idea that success is best measured in material wealth, that service and labor should be disdained, that every man for himself is the only way to go. We have never been quite so glorious as we have imagined ourselves -- far too much innocent blood has been spilled when we have lost our way -- but when we have attained our moments of nobility, we have been selfless, courageous and idealistic. Completely with you on this. When I was a kid, astronauts were the closest things I had to real-life heroes. I collected stuff about them the way other kids collected baseball cards. I even remember having an Apollo coloring book around the time of the moon landing. And President Kennedy made his famous speech committing to putting a man on the moon "at the end of this decade" on the day I was born. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 4, 2016 9:28:23 GMT -5
“You hate America, don't you?' That would be as silly as loving it,' I said. 'It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to a human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will.” ― Kurt Vonnegut Country boundaries are truly human invented things. But there are other differences besides real estate and lines on maps. Ask anyone who's been arrested on drug charges in, say, Mexico or Turkey for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 6, 2016 4:08:27 GMT -5
“You hate America, don't you?' That would be as silly as loving it,' I said. 'It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to a human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will.” ― Kurt Vonnegut Country boundaries are truly human invented things. But there are other differences besides real estate and lines on maps. Ask anyone who's been arrested on drug charges in, say, Mexico or Turkey for instance. Sorry to chime in here, but this discussion reminded me of something that happened to me a couple of ays ago. I agree with your point, but it goes deeper than laws, too-it's about different mindsets. As a kid, I always used to assume that Britain and America and had more in common than Britain and, say, Germany, because we spoke (more or less) the same language, but culturally, the US seems to have a totally different mindset to the UK and much of Europe. I spent a frustrating couple of hours on Friday dipping in and out of a Facebook discussion on Doctor Who, basically trying to explain the BBC to two youngish American fans who, I gradually realized, were fundamentally incapable of accepting the idea that it was not run for profit and was funded by a tax which most of us don't object to paying. I realize I may be letting two guys in their twenties colour my views of an entire country, but I got the distinct impression that they thought I was insane for even implying that a taxpayer funded corporation founded on socialist principles was, if it were even possible, remotely desirable. It seemed to indicate that we had very different ideas about the role of the individual and of government in society. But, as I say, I may be letting one experience skew my perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 6, 2016 4:21:19 GMT -5
You are generalizing. We have the PBS government sponsored TV stations nationwide as well as public radio. They also have donation drives from viewers and businesses. No commercials
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 6, 2016 4:58:05 GMT -5
You are generalizing. We have the PBS government sponsored TV stations nationwide as well as public radio. They also have donation drives from viewers and businesses. No commercials Government? So these are paid for by a mandatory tax, like the TV licence fee? I thought they were funded purely by voluntary donations. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 6, 2016 12:58:41 GMT -5
You are generalizing. We have the PBS government sponsored TV stations nationwide as well as public radio. They also have donation drives from viewers and businesses. No commercials Government? So these are paid for by a mandatory tax, like the TV licence fee? I thought they were funded purely by voluntary donations. Interesting. It gets government grants from the general fund. There is no separate dedicated tax. It also gets big business endowments and viewer donations. No commercials- before a show starts an announcer might say that this show is brought to you by so-an-so. It is a charitable act and is tax-deductable as well as prestigious. In the days before cable TV when there was at most 5 or 6 TV stations in the biggest of markets, it was determined that it was important that at least one would be educational and help disseminate high-culture with worrying about ratings commercial pressure. They started up during the mid 1960s. Much BBC material is broadcast thru these stations. Its the same on the radio side |
|
