I've seen him several times since most recently at the First Union/ Wachovia Center.

Jed,
While I may not agree with your opinion, I respect that it is something you feel strongly about. My way of looking at foreign countries and their governments (assuming they are democratic), is that people elect them based on what they will do for them, or in some cases, the least of two evils ( something some canadians are now feeling). For a country like Canada, pride in our history and a deep need to feel independent from a much larger, stronger and culturally dominant neighbour means that our politicians must walk a fine line between showing independence (not going to Iraq) and accepting reality (largest trade partner). So while occasionally a politician will say something like : "we don't want our health care system to be the 'for profit' model of the US, we are different", it is not an attack on the US, but rather a comforting of the masses that we are, and will continue to be, a country that has its own home grown traditions and agenda... call it our version of patriotism.

This being said, I find it VERY hard to believe that a majority of French or German people would elect any government based SOLELY on the fact that any politician is pro or con the US. It may sway some people, for sure. I may be wrong, but I think most people think local, not global. I don't think Bush would win any election if the economy is going badly, no matter what is happening in Iraq...'I want a job,what party will help me find one..'
I am willing to be corrected on this :)

A government is not necessarily the people....hate the government, but many conflicting issues led to that goverment being in power, and as someone esle said, most governments are not elected by the majority of the eligible voters..

In all our travels approx. 20 countries incl.much of western europe,Egypt,Jordan,U.A.E.,we have never been mistreated by anyone.For the most part people dislike particular politicians or govt. policies not citizens.

Leelani -

Yes, European politics does affect my travel choices, particularly the Netherlands politics. We have travelled there 5 times because we can discreetly purchase and smoke marijuana without the fear of persecution. Peace.

Robyn

Yes. I won't travel to the US for pleasure until the current US government is out of office AND the ridiculous immigration policies have changed. I have heard too many stories of innocent foreign tourists to the US who had done nothing wrong and were handcuffed and put in a prison cell until they could be deported. (last story yesterday in the newspaper: a Dutch guy overstayed his US visa for *two days* in 1996 because his young son was in hospital in the US and dad wanted to stay with his son until they could travel home together. He travels to the US again last week for a holiday, was arrested for overstaying the visa in 1996, handcuffed, and put in a cell for two days until he could travel home. If something like that would happen to an American tourist in Europe this forum would be full of people complaining about "bad treatment of American tourists in Europe".) Besides, I don't want to be fingerprinted by a foreign government that I can't trust.

artstuff, never thought of it that way but netherlands politics probably inflence many many americans to travel that way. I heard canada was headed in that diection? it would be quite a boon for canadian tourism, probably would be be alot more canadian rocky spring break trips

Sjoerd - I am pretty sure that EU members are not figerprinted. only countries where residents need a visa to enter the US get fingerprinted

dgruzew: you are right, but the rules will change on Sept. 30, 2004. After that date, citizens of all "visa waiver countries" (including EU countries) will be fingerprinted when arriving in the USA.

Its amusing, at least for me, that Brazil implemented a policy to fingertip US tourist, its just fair.

Is Brazil a major target of international terrorism? If not, no need to fingerprint anyone. If so, then should fingerprint everyone.

Yes, politics affect my travel choices. Before 2001, I had never taken a trip where I spent most of the time in France. Since Rumsfield started shooting off his mouth, I have had 3 trips to France.

No, I don?t think Brazil it?s a major target of international terrorism. And Im sorry for what has happened to a lot of innocent people in the US.

But Brazil its just doing what in diplomatic terms its referred as reciprocity.

Sjoerd:I doubt you'll be missed.

<i>I would not travel to a country who's INTERNAL politics I found objectionable (e.g. South Africa during apartide, Saudi Arabia and other states that deny women or minorities basic human rights). These criteria are not applicable to any European nation, as far as I am aware.</i>

Good point, Ger, on &quot;external vs. internal&quot; politics. I don't know about Canadians, but Americans support the regime in Saudi Arabia far more by driving gas-guzzling behemoths than by traveling there.
___________

<i>ira, I live in a country that has weapons of mass destruction.</i>

Nice one, elle! Also agree with you about Boston being a cool city; it's one of my top five favorites in the U.S. And, while I've always liked Massachusetts, I like the state even more since it did the right thing regarding same-sex marriage.

Oh, and by the way, if Jean-Baptiste jumped off the Pont du Gard...he might just be a BASE jumper. :)

http://www.afn.org/skydive/base/

mgmargate: very mature reply you gave there, my friend. 'Nuf said.