Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for your comment and insights that bring just the following comment from me in response. To us.
Thanks for wading through that long post; writing it was a bit of an indulgence.
Quote:
Pretty woman traveling most anywhere is likely to be "warmly welcomed." Yet another bias common all over the world, among heterosexual men anyway.
Traveling as a couple or in any kind of a group and now many years later with my daughter is an entirely different experience. For better or worse (and it is sometimes that) a culture tends to surround a young woman if only out of concern for her and by taking a dominant role shows a lot of what is authentic about themselves and that time and place.
Quote:
Not sure how much other travel you have done or if you would agree, but I have not traveled to countries that are more "anti-American," like in much of the ME, but I've got little doubt that travel for an American to those areas is not going to be as safe or pleasant in general.
That first trip to Israel was a bit of a test run. Once back in the United States, I quit a job, sold some property and left for a year again traveling pretty much solo returning home only reluctantly due to a family death. Even after returning to the work force, I was fortunate enough to find project work permitting time off for long trips overseas.
Anti-American destinations? I don't know how to answer that since government positions often differ from popular sentiment and both are complicated by religious and gender issues. The earliest time spent in countries traditionally anti-American were China (1988) and Russia (1992) but both trips were with groups and thereby insulated. There was an unpleasant encounter with a Russian delegation in India in the late 1980s who not quite knowing why they kept seeing me around became quite angry and didn't respond well. But that wasn't a matter of simple anti-American sentiment but their own internal constraints.
Certainly the most anti-American *rhetoric* (most in-country nationals are too polite) would be from Europeans met along the way with straight-talking Germans at times pretty blunt. Pakistan (travelled thru the NW frontier and the Karakoram Mts. in a small group then on to Lahore on my own) provided a interesting variety of reactions. Some expressions of anti-American sentiment (from two well-educated women who were I believe university teachers who shared their car with me one afternoon while we waited for a landslide to be cleared) but with quick and very warm assistance provided by many Pakistanis. Challenging gender issues, though with Bangladesh about the worst here where it simply wasn't possible to be on the street on your own. Egyptians were very open to American visitors but wanted nothing to do with Israelis.
As for not being safe, the worst places I've seen were oil towns (S. America) where there was almost complete breakdown at least at night of order due to the large discrepancy in wealth.
What is important in either wandering on your own OR for formal diplomacy on the Presidential or State level is not to be misunderstood. Any lack of clarity tends to be filled with a projection that may well be less than favorable. Both George W. and Obama were careful even expansive in the rhetoric they adopted sensitive to how it might play in the ME. ISIS is, of course, lost in a megalomanic madness but terrorist groups along the lines of an Al Qaeda assiduously court the minds of the Arab middle class. To abandon that fight to them strikes me as a mistake.
Quote:
Where you and I part company in terms of agreement is with regard to what you state that I have bolded in your comment above. I am neither Jewish or Muslim or Christian. I am not an Israeli or a Palestinian. I don't believe one must pick a side, not in the case of the Israelis and Palestinians anyway. I believe to the extent one is able (and not many are) one must judge without bias, fairly and reasonably, as to what ACTIONS of either side are right or wrong. In fact, I think choosing both sides, what is best for both sides -- all considered -- is what is best.
I agree - at least in theory or in one sense. My initial meaning was in the context of spending time with Palestinians in the Old City. To be brief, those I met were highly ideological, terribly frustrated, angry and while I could empathize with their plight *both* sides have something to answer for in the conflict. It would have been inappropriate, unkind, and perhaps just plain not wise for me to speak as freely as I would have liked plus (and I cannot find the right words for it's been too long) there tended to be a pattern of logic used that was foreign to me.
In contrast, Israelis drawing on their Jewish heritage fall on the opposite end of the continuum with the tradition of debate, even dissent not only allowed but encouraged and respected. Visiting between the two groups was becoming less possible as Palestinians shared more of their lives with me while contacts with Israelis continued. I picked one over the other by moving down to Tel Aviv.
In a larger sense, you of course right that world history proves entangling alliances to be unwise. Look at World War One. But why do we enter them not only on a global but also on the personal level? A neurobiological heritage from the cave man days? We pay a price for our continuing alliance with Israel if only in that it's drawn us further into the bulls eye as a target. (Or did, with ISIS the targeting is global and non-discriminant and probably has nothing to do with traditional US support of the Jewish state.) Living where I do, I may even be of higher risk of terrorism but still maintain an irrational attachment to the State or Israel. No need to delude myself to the history, but still there's that support.
Last edited by EveryLady; 12-31-2016 at 07:26 PM..
The British during that time period were hated by everybody. Most of their fighting was against the British and not the Arabs. Neither of those two groups walked into power in 1948 making sure there were no elections for the next 70 years. There was a war started by the Arabs in 1948, did you expect them to just sit it out? So your point is...?
My point was and still is that Zionists performed acts of terrorism to further their goals to form Israel, so the issue of who are the terrorists is a matter of perspective and/or they were terrorists no more or less than Hamas and the PLO similarly labeled in the comment I was responding to.
My effort for the sake of still more balance where it is badly needed when it comes to the truth of these matters...
Most of that fighting was against the British, yes, but why? And how many of the 92 killed in the King David bombing were who they were fighting "out of hatred?" (Most civilians, 17 Jewish).
Hint: the answer goes well beyond simple hatred. The issue is what gives rise for these "hatreds," acts of terrorism, conflicts. Questions most people simply can't even understand even today, let alone answer...
What kind of spin are you talking about? I think even the staunchest of democrats would agree that Obama has lied in the past. "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." That is one example. But, Obama assured us that his Iran deal was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Whether you trust Iran or not, Obama was either telling the truth, or he wasn't. Being a strong Obama supporter, I would think that you trust his judgment enough to think that what he is telling you is based in reality. Obviously, you don't. You think Iran has the capability to start a nuclear war with Israel. Don't you see the contradiction?
If this can be used as an example of a "lie," then what politician does not lie? How can a politician not "lie" in such circumstances?
No way no how could Obama really know what would come of his vision and belief related to how the ACA would turn out. Anyone who thinks a politician campaigning for POTUS can keep all their "promises" really does not know the first thing about our political system, or how Congress influences these outcomes beyond what any POTUS can dictate.
No one could really know what the ACA would actually turn out to be, especially at birth, but of course the idea was to set the concept into motion and make the necessary adjustments and improvements afterward. I have similarly been involved in rolling out significant business programs with GOALS in mind, always that required adjustments and improvements to address the problems and surprises that inevitably emerge, but rolling out the program is first order of business. Getting the thing out the door!
Same thing happened with the Social Security Act, of 1935! Revised/amended how many times since then!?!
One might argue that a politician should be totally honest. Maybe Obama should have said, for example, "if I am elected POTUS, and if I can get the vested interests against my health care system overhaul to cooperate, especially the drug and insurance companies, and if I can get Congress to pass the legislation exactly as I have in mind, and if all the States will fall in line, and if we can get all the folks to sign up as necessary, especially the younger ones who claim they don't need health insurance, and if I can count on the effort to make the future adjustments necessary to perfect Obamacare over time, maybe just maybe we can do something about our health care system problem and these runaway costs year after year, also maybe correct the problem of preventing people with pre-existing conditions to get health care coverage..."
What is a "lie" is to suggest that Americans have any patience or tolerance for that sort of truth. We want "doers," like Trump well marketed himself to all Americans who love "doers" regardless what they actually can or CANNOT do on their own. Americans don't want much more than what fits on a bumper sticker quite frankly, and "lies" fit on a bumper sticker much better than a truthful explanation of the facts.
Simply stating "to make America great again" works a whole lot better than explaining how...
I kept my plan,I kept my Doctor.Obama did the best he could with Iran ,he has tried .If Iran does not keep to their word the the UN can go in and handle it and we have proof we have tried how is that an Obama lie?No I see your made up spin.I am a strong Obama supporter but he is only a man and we as grown ups need to realize even the good intentions don't always work out.
Another question worth answering is again the WHY...
I too kept my doctor and my plan, but WHY have some people found this would not be the case for them?
The answer is important I think, and necessary, but only in the context of what it takes to make the ACA work in the manner intended. For those who were against Obama and/or the concept of the ACA in the first place, the answers or reasons simply don't matter...
Thanks for wading through that long post; writing it was a bit of an indulgence.
Thanks again. I always caution about what conclusions we make based on our own personal interactions, because most of us can never actually meet and talk to enough people to establish a "data base" large enough to reasonably conclude what a group of people thinks...
Take for example what a Palestinian visiting the United States might conclude about American sentiments depending on what states and cities and people they might encounter. Same with a visitor from Germany or Japan or China for that matter. Having done a fair amount of travel myself, locals often seem wanting to know what "an American" thinks, but obviously they are only learning what I think by listening to me, and obviously when reading comments in these threads, I don't represent all Americans, not by a long shot.
This too is why we have leaders in a better position to speak for the people they represent, and/or why there are professional polling organizations that are better able to establish what larger groups of people think, better than we can through personal contacts in any case.
Of course, even more cause for caution is the realization that even professional polling organizations often don't get what the broader populace thinks exactly right, proven yet again as the marvel of POTUS Trump soon becomes a reality, beyond most imaginations...
If this can be used as an example of a "lie," then what politician does not lie? How can a politician not "lie" in such circumstances?
No way no how could Obama really know what would come of his vision and belief related to how the ACA would turn out. Anyone who thinks a politician campaigning for POTUS can keep all their "promises" really does not know the first thing about our political system, or how Congress influences these outcomes beyond what any POTUS can dictate.
No one could really know what the ACA would actually turn out to be, especially at birth, but of course the idea was to set the concept into motion and make the necessary adjustments and improvements afterward. I have similarly been involved in rolling out significant business programs with GOALS in mind, always that required adjustments and improvements to address the problems and surprises that inevitably emerge, but rolling out the program is first order of business. Getting the thing out the door!
Same thing happened with the Social Security Act, of 1935! Revised/amended how many times since then!?!
One might argue that a politician should be totally honest. Maybe Obama should have said, for example, "if I am elected POTUS, and if I can get the vested interests against my health care system overhaul to cooperate, especially the drug and insurance companies, and if I can get Congress to pass the legislation exactly as I have in mind, and if all the States will fall in line, and if we can get all the folks to sign up as necessary, especially the younger ones who claim they don't need health insurance, and if I can count on the effort to make the future adjustments necessary to perfect Obamacare over time, maybe just maybe we can do something about our health care system problem and these runaway costs year after year, also maybe correct the problem of preventing people with pre-existing conditions to get health care coverage..."
What is a "lie" is to suggest that Americans have any patience or tolerance for that sort of truth. We want "doers," like Trump well marketed himself to all Americans who love "doers" regardless what they actually can or CANNOT do on their own. Americans don't want much more than what fits on a bumper sticker quite frankly, and "lies" fit on a bumper sticker much better than a truthful explanation of the facts.
Simply stating "to make America great again" works a whole lot better than explaining how...
He was trying to sell his plan to the American People, and was willing to say whatever he had to say in order to do it. It was a lie. That was one of the biggest concerns Americans had with his healthcare plan, and he told them what they wanted to hear. It is no different than if I buy a TV, and the salesman tells me it is a smart TV, but then I get it home and find out that it is not. If he was going to make such an important claim, he should have been damn well sure that what he was selling is what he was advertising.
Another question worth answering is again the WHY...
I too kept my doctor and my plan, but WHY have some people found this would not be the case for them?
The answer is important I think, and necessary, but only in the context of what it takes to make the ACA work in the manner intended. For those who were against Obama and/or the concept of the ACA in the first place, the answers or reasons simply don't matter...
Or maybe, some people are a little too willing to give Obama a pass on whatever he does.
And in light of that, in keeping with the topic of the thread, I always thought the people who claimed Obama is a Muslim, were a little wacky. I'm not so sure anymore.
He was trying to sell his plan to the American People, and was willing to say whatever he had to say in order to do it. It was a lie. That was one of the biggest concerns Americans had with his healthcare plan, and he told them what they wanted to hear. It is no different than if I buy a TV, and the salesman tells me it is a smart TV, but then I get it home and find out that it is not. If he was going to make such an important claim, he should have been damn well sure that what he was selling is what he was advertising.
Telling Americans "what they want to hear" is not a "lie." It's politics and what it takes to get elected...
I have often thought about how I would do things differently if I were in their shoes. Have you?
Anyone who pays attention to what works and what doesn't has little choice but to be a "politician" if they are going to play the game of politics, and unfortunately..., this means you MUST speak forcefully, confidently and "promise" what you believe you can do if elected. What you CANNOT do is tell people the truth, because the truth is as I explained before. By the time campaign "promises" are converted into passed legislation, and by the time that legislation becomes the law, and by the time that law is implemented over time..., who can avoid telling these "lies" to start with, as you wish to call them?
Seems you are a medical professional and not someone who needs to "win hearts and minds" by way of persuasion to continue your work. It shows, and I too am a great champion and fan of the truth. Please don't get me wrong. I am also a realist, and I think this I am explaining is the truth most people don't understand about what it takes to be a politician these days, let alone one who ventures toward the realm of becoming POTUS.
It is no different than if I buy a TV, and the salesman tells me it is a smart TV, but then I get it home and find out that it is not. If he was going to make such an important claim, he should have been damn well sure that what he was selling is what he was advertising.
There is a big difference between your example about the sale of a product and that of political promises. Surely you know this, so I won't bother to explain further.
If you want to use an analogy closer to the mark, imagine what Steve Jobs "promised" when on stage explaining what the next Apple computer would be able to do. Some of those promises kept, some not so much.
Are those lies?
Consider as well, when I go for a medical procedure. I'm told all will be well, not to worry. I'll be out of the hospital in no time. This is what I am told. What I am not told is all the rest that I need to sign I have read and fully understand...
What is the "lie" and what is the truth in all these sorts of cases involving how people are made to feel or believe despite the absolute truths of these matters? As usual, the answer is not so black or white...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
