America's Number 1!!!

[C-Nub]

I'm a Canadian, and I happen to live in a town where a large percentage of our economy is based on tourism, and a large percentage of our tourists are Americans, most of whom are on there way to Alaska. I also deal a great deal with Russians, Germans, Austrians, the Japanese, the Chinese, and as of late, somewhat surprising considering my rather arctic local, people from Mexico.

No citizens of any country compare to the Americans when it comes to sheer boastfulness, (or patriotism if you accept their definition for it.)

When they aren't insisting that their constitution somehow grants them the right to bring fully automatic military grade assault weapons into our country, they can generally be heard insisting that theirs is the best nation on Earth.

Ignoring the fact that going into another country only to state that yours' is better is almost inexcusably rude, having heard it today for what has to be the millionth time (slight exaggeration warning) I've really got to ask... Those of you who think your country is the best, of all the countries out there, uh... why?

Before you answer, though, I thought I'd gather up some things called 'facts'. In this case, they are statistical facts. I gathered them from the BBC, Wikipedia (I know, not the best source,) The New York Times (a little better,) and The World Almanac, which I think is pretty credible.

The Wealthiest country in the world: Luxembourg.
The United States of America: Sixth.

The Most Generous Country in the world (Charitable Donations in American Dollars per Capita): Luxembourg (appropriate)
The United States of America: 18th. Luxembourgians give twenty-two times more money per person to charity.

Highest Income Per Person: Norway.
United States of America: Third. That's actually not too bad, really, but it isn't #1.

Obesity: America's Number 1 here!
Sorry, I just had to throw that one out. It's not one you want to win, for the record.

Longest Lifespan: Anelorra... I've never heard of it. Might have spelled it wrong.
United States of America: Yeah, didn't even make the top 20, where the list cut off. Laaaame. Canada was on there!

Most Recycling: The Swiss! (These guys are actually #1 in a lot of things)
United States of America: Seventh.

Health Care: France is number 1
The United States of America: Nineteenth. Basically not a country you want to get sick/hurt/pregnant in.

Employment Rate: Iceland is number one here.
The United States of America: Tenth. At least your a top ten country here.

Literacy Rate: Georgia is the most literate country in the world.
The United States: Forty Ninth. Yeah. That's right. This one is from the New York Times. Just for the record, that's really, really, really bad.

Here's a few more, without the comparison, which stopped being necessary after Literacy.

The United States is

28th in Math literacy
37th in general health
22nd in Child Poverty (No Child Left Behind!)
41st in Infant Mortality. That one, right there, should disqualify you from even saying you're a "Good" country, let alone the best. That one is just disgusting.
24th in Murder. Before you pat yourselves on the back for not being number one here, that's out 156, and the countries beating you are ones like Zambia and Iraq. The only developed country further ahead of you on the murder list is Mexico, and honestly, no offense to Mexico, it's not that developed now, is it?

65% of the eligible voters in your country did not vote in the 2004 Presidential elections.

Your nation continues to reject the metric system in favor of an incredibly arbitrary system that has decided, for no reason, that five thousand, two hundred and eighty feet is a mile. Why five thousand, two hundred and eighty? Do you know how many meters are in a kilometer? A thousand. Wow that's complicated.



I know this comes off as hostile, and I don't want it to. Many of my very best friends and overall favorite people are Americans, but at the same time, these are your country men that preach a false gospel of greatness, and you guys have to be a little responsible for them and the amount of ill will they generate internationally towards your nation as a whole. Can any of you justify your belief that you're even in the top ten, let alone the number one nation on earth? Are you God's favorite, despite the bible making pretty clear you're not? (The Holy Land, anyone???)

You've given the world the Airplane, the Lightbulb, Electricity (technically Nikolai Tesla, not so much an American, created the current electric systems) and the automobile (though you don't make any good ones now) but you've also given us reality TV, Britney Spears and every other singer like her, and a bunch of words that no longer have U's in them for no good damn reason at all. (Usually followed by some sort of assertion that it is you, and not us, who speak 'proper English,' despite the fact that the language is named for the country of its origin, England.)

Help me out here.

[McCulloch]

I am not so sure that dividing the U.S. back into 50 independent states would be a great idea, but I do agree that there is way too much power being given to the executive branch and the idea of "by the people" is becoming meaningless.

Checks and balances. Personally, I find it difficult to perceive that one can pretend to have democracy with only two parties to represent the wide range of opinions and points of view of the electorate. But the two party system is a product of the first-past-the-post winner-takes-all electoral system which does not properly allocate power according to the proportional wishes of the voters. My country is not much better. We have a grand total of three parties representing voters across the country and one more in Québec (they have to have more options than the rest of us).

[Vladd44]

I am not so sure that dividing the U.S. back into 50 independent states would be a great idea, but I do agree that there is way too much power being given to the executive branch and the idea of "by the people" is becoming meaningless.

No doubt the idea of a dissolution of the USA is improbable unless the economic mess we are in now gets a lot worse quickly. A result that no one comes out good from.

But at bare minimum I believe we need a new constitution with as much power as possible devolved to state and local municipalities.

The executive branch must also be dealt with, or in my opinion neutered.

I like the idea of a representative body along with a senate. The senate's job being to obstruct most of what the house does.

Perhaps a "president" could be chosen by the house from a slate chosen in the senate for 1 6year term. This would allow their to be an official head of state without the divide being between the legislative branch and the executive being so vast.

In some ways what I would like to see is a more parliamentarian form of government. And as McCulloch mentioned the end of the two party system is a must.

By moving the power to a more localized situation would make it easier for smaller parties to win elections that really matter.

I must confess I do not like Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers. The best thing history has shown most of them to be good at is standing in front of walls with firing squads or hanging from the end of a rope.

I consider myself a patriot through and through, but it does not mean I have to blindly support my government. Especially when it has broken just about every promise given to the people.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution

The states can do it without the Federal government. if 34 states call for a constitution convention we can have one.

[McCulloch]

The executive branch must also be dealt with, or in my opinion neutered.

I know of more than a few people who would like to neuter the current President.

I like the idea of a representative body along with a senate. The senate's job being to obstruct most of what the house does.

You already have two elected legislative bodies, you want a third?

And as McCulloch mentioned the end of the two party system is a must.

Yet the two party system is not mandated by the constitution but is a natural outgrowth of the existing political system. Change the system to reward smaller parties which represent the interests of significant numbers of voters and the two party system will naturally devolve.

The states can do it without the Federal government. if 34 states call for a constitution convention we can have one.

Good luck with that one.

[Vladd44]

I know of more than a few people who would like to neuter the current President.

I was thinking of an old Air Force slogan... Aim High(er).

You already have two elected legislative bodies, you want a third?

'

No, just expounding on the representative House and the anti-democracy balance already in existence.

Yet the two party system is not mandated by the constitution but is a natural outgrowth of the existing political system. Change the system to reward smaller parties which represent the interests of significant numbers of voters and the two party system will naturally devolve.

Agreed.

Good luck with that one.

Need and desperation can achieve a lot.

[Sjoerd]

My own country must be disintegrating too, I am sure that the Netherlands were topping at least some of the lists mentioned here just a few years ago (not the murder list fortunately)

By the way, although the Netherlands are a NATO member, the American Congress has passed a law entitling them to invade the Netherlands if at any time an American citizen is held at the International Court here.

For good or bad (or both), America is a fascinating country...

... , the fact we have not been invaded for over a 1000 years, ...

Aha, got you there! The Netherlands invaded and conquered Great Britain in 1688 with a fleet greater than the Spanish Armada. The Dutch prince William defeated king James and installed himself on the throne. However, his propaganda was so good that the British still call it the Glorious Revolution today.

[Fallibleone]

Aha, got you there! The Netherlands invaded and conquered Great Britain in 1688 with a fleet greater than the Spanish Armada. The Dutch prince William defeated king James and installed himself on the throne.

However Mary II, his wife, who ruled jointly with him until she died, was English and the daughter of the overthrown King. William (James's nephew) came to power as the result of a plot to overthrow James II (VII) by the English Protestants, and he had the complicity of the English armed forces and the general population. James was deemed by Parliament to have forfeited his throne by abdication. The only person who seemed to not want William to come over was the King. Is that an invasion?

However, his propaganda was so good that the British still call it the Glorious Revolution today.

That's because the English people wanted him, since his predecessor did such an atrocious job. As ever, it was all about religion.

[Sjoerd]

However Mary II, his wife, who ruled jointly with him until she died, was English and the daughter of the overthrown King.

True.

William (James's nephew) came to power as the result of a plot to overthrow James II (VII) by the English Protestants, and he had the complicity of the English armed forces and the general population.
...
The only person who seemed to not want William to come over was the King. Is that an invasion?

The "revolution" started with the landing of a 60,000 strong invasion force. Even then, it took a few weeks before the English army started to defect, partly due to James's indecision.
It is true that in many areas, the general population was on William's side. However, when William prevented James from fleeing, James was welcomed by cheering crowds upon his return to London. In the end, William deliberately let James escape to France.

James was deemed by Parliament to have forfeited his throne by abdication.

Yes, but the Tories disagreed, and they initially voted against it. Only after William made some threats to leave England in the hands of their enemies, the Whigs, they decided to change their minds.

However, his propaganda was so good that the British still call it the Glorious Revolution today.

That's because the English people wanted him, since his predecessor did such an atrocious job.

Remember, it's always the victors who write the history. Most Irish and Scottish thought otherwise.

As ever, it was all about religion.

True, or actually, it was a power struggle between groups who generally aligned themselves with a brand of religion. The Catholic king of France usually supported the Protestants in Germany because that served his own interests better. In fact, the kings of France descended from a Protestant who had converted for political reasons upon becoming king. In fact, king James himself was originally a Protestant who converted to Catholicism for whatever reason.

[Fallibleone]

However Mary II, his wife, who ruled jointly with him until she died, was English and the daughter of the overthrown King.

True.

William (James's nephew) came to power as the result of a plot to overthrow James II (VII) by the English Protestants, and he had the complicity of the English armed forces and the general population.
...
The only person who seemed to not want William to come over was the King. Is that an invasion?

The "revolution" started with the landing of a 60,000 strong invasion force. Even then, it took a few weeks before the English army started to defect, partly due to James's indecision.
It is true that in many areas, the general population was on William's side. However, when William prevented James from fleeing, James was welcomed by cheering crowds upon his return to London. In the end, William deliberately let James escape to France.

I know, I know. It fits the definition of both 'invasion' and 'revolution'. So even if one claims 'invasion', 'revolution' can still be argued.

James was deemed by Parliament to have forfeited his throne by abdication.

Yes, but the Tories disagreed, and they initially voted against it. Only after William made some threats to leave England in the hands of their enemies, the Whigs, they decided to change their minds.

However, his propaganda was so good that the British still call it the Glorious Revolution today.

That's because the English people wanted him, since his predecessor did such an atrocious job.

Remember, it's always the victors who write the history.

I know. I studied History.

Most Irish and Scottish thought otherwise.

That's why I said 'English people', not 'British people'. Is it coincidence that the Irish and Scots were Catholic?

As ever, it was all about religion.

True, or actually, it was a power struggle between groups who generally aligned themselves with a brand of religion. The Catholic king of France usually supported the Protestants in Germany because that served his own interests better. In fact, the kings of France descended from a Protestant who had converted for political reasons upon becoming king. In fact, king James himself was originally a Protestant who converted to Catholicism for whatever reason.

Oh yes, I realise that there are usually many issues involved in such things. But for the normal Joe Bloggs, it was all about religion, oversimplification as that is. It was religion which was the main reason for the dissatisfaction with James II (VII) to begin with. Anyhow, I have no vested interest in it being a revolution as opposed to an invasion. I don't want to argue for it - I just thought the point should be made. It can be called either, and neither is sufficient explanation on its own.

[Sjoerd]

I know, I know. It fits the definition of both 'invasion' and 'revolution'. So even if one claims 'invasion', 'revolution' can still be argued.

I completely agree with that. I couldn't resist prodding a bit into British "we have never been invaded in 1000 years" pride, so I admit I have been a bit selective in the evidence. It was both an invasion and a revolution.
It wasn't just religion, though: the rejection of James's absolutist ideas were at least as important.

Btw, I thought that the Scots were mostly Protestants? Or is this since after the 17th century?

I didn't know that you studied history!

[McCulloch]

Btw, I thought that the Scots were mostly Protestants? Or is this since after the 17th century?

At the time of the Jacobite rebellions, most of the Scots were Protestant. However, Scottish Catholics and the Catholic foreign powers (France and Spain) were generally supportive of the restoration of the Stuart kings.