CotswoldScouser

grsing:

How does that differ from trains for Germany leaving from Austerlitz?. Or trains for Belfast leaving from Dublin Connolly?

grsing

There are lots of London stations, and the only international services from Waterloo are to Paris and Brussels (pretty much, and the rest are to France anyway). Plus the Germans eventually won that war, just took some time, while Waterloo is probably one of the best known historical events, even among people who don't know history (Austerlitz is much less known). Plus Gare d'Austerlitz services pretty much everything in that direction, and Connolly is the main Dublin station, so it just makes sense.

Guy18

StephCar, I'd love to know what he told you about gay rights in the UK.

Reprobate and Tracey, While I don't think that the teachers you've cited did anything to merit dismissal, I do believe (speaking as a teacher) that our speech in the classroom should be limited. I've known high school teachers who shove their political views down their students' throats every single day. That's a definite problem.

There is a certain paradox to the limitations Europeans put on free speech. While they have enshrined these limitations in law, it seems that your average European can speak openly about his political views. In the states, I feel that my being a liberal democrat puts me in danger. The other side truly believes it makes me "un-American" and the venom that they feel free to spew at us is sickening. It took courage to put my "Is it 2008 yet?" bumper sticker on my car. Luckily no slashed tires yet, but I got my first finger just the other day. On the other hand, I doubt that those who have the "W: the president" stickers (???) have anything to fear from our side.

grsing

Guy18: From experience, I don't know about Democrats being violent, but they can be surprisingly intolerant of views contrary of their own, just as much as Republicans (for the record, I'm neither, but since I'm not a Democrat and go to a fairly liberal school, I usually wind up in the more conservative camp).

StephCar

Grahamh49 and grsing--I know, I know, never wise to discuss important issues over a pint. But the problem is I am SO MUCH SMARTER when I am drinking when everything just seems so obvious. lol.

Guy18--actually, we ended up at a pub sitting next to this super nice gay couple that was sharing with us the plights they have being a couple in England. How basically their "rights" are complex and very limited. They were buying a house together, and finding a way to ensure that in the event of catastrophe it could be left to the other in a will. I remember thinking that England was not much more progressive than the US in this area. To be honest, that is about all I remember, since I continued drinking that night after we left the other pub.

Oh wait...another lesson is shining through...don't keep drinking and discussing important issues if you want to actually remember them.

grsing

Oh, I've got no problem discussing politics over a pint. It's over the 4th or so that it starts getting questionable (but I'm an IR major, so it still usually happens).

CotswoldScouser

This thread is getting too emollient.

So here's the question I'd really like an answer to.

Have Americans' politics always been this unpleasant? It wasn't (was it?) like this under Eisenhower. Certainly not under Ford or George 1. It didn't even seem like this under Nixon or Reagan. And it took Democrats to really, really hate LBJ.

Given how little difference there really is betwen the sides (Hillary most certainly wasn't against the war in 2003. As I recall, even Jesse Jackson wasn't), what is it that's causing levels of vitriol we certainly don't see in my neck of the woods?

Tracey14

Geography is a social science, and as such, has everything to do with history, political science, culture, etc. I'm not sure how one could teach geography - at least in an interesting and intelligient way - without including such topics. As for the Colorado geography teacher: I don't think that anyone should refer to his "insane rants." That whole incident displayed exactly the ignorant moralism that laughingd2 referred to, insofar as many people have felt themselves qualified to make judgments about a teacher based on one 20-minute taped excerpt. Context is everything: and most public consumers of this story know absolutely nothing about this instructor, or his classes. What really appalls me is how almost noone has publicly censured the student or his father. Their actions - the student surreptiously taped his teacher, and the father promptly distributed it to talk radio, without ever discussing it with the teacher or the school's principal - were terribly unethical.

That being said: beer and politics do not mix, as I know from too many knock-down arguments with my father! Finally, Guy, I guess my original point was this: topics, whether religion, sex, or politics, aren't obnoxious; people are obnoxious. I've had unpleasant exchanges with folks about the most innocuous things. So I hope you don't deprive yourself of interesting conversational opportunities; for example, a woman who has lived in York for 50+ years, who takes her daily constitutional of a glass of wine and then a brandy in one of the old York pubs, and who treated me to a very interesting lecture on the strengths of British public health!

kleeblatt

Cotswald:

When I left the states twenty-years ago, people discussed politics freely. Things began to turn after Bush became President and after 9-11 it became unpatriotic to criticize the government.

I hope there's a new wind coming and people can speak freely about their views again.

Tracey14

I agree with Schuler. But I sometimes wonder if there's something else or more going on. The New York Times ran an article about a survey (by the NEH, maybe?) over a year ago: more Americans than ever before are writing books, but fewer Americans than ever before are reading books. Good conversation requires listening as well as talking, but more and more I see people talking (or writing), and not listening (or reading).

walkinaround

>>>>
Given how little difference there really is betwen the sides (Hillary most certainly wasn't against the war in 2003. As I recall, even Jesse Jackson wasn't), what is it that's causing levels of vitriol we certainly don't see in my neck of the woods?
>>>>

i couldn't agree more with this point.

2 quotes from this thread:
>>>>I usually wind up in the more conservative camp>>>>

<<<<have anything to fear from our side.>>>


"our camp, our side." that's the problem. it's a team mentality and people will argue for their team no matter what. nothing is more boring than discussing politics with an american because you just get a rehash of the position of "their side". and i have yawns when either "side" rehashes its (extremely similar) beliefs.

it's all a sham. i think it's designed this way so that people get the feeling that there is real choice. when things get really heated, americans will usually utter some myth like "a nice healthy debate, this is what america is about!" don't confuse hatred and fierce rivalry with real choice. as CS says, they are almost the same.

grsing

Cotswald: No, American politics have definitely not always been this divisive, and it's really ironic and funny in a sad sort of way, because, as you mentioned, the parties are so similar, more so than they have been in the past (perhaps not in their rhetoric, but certainly in the actions; I can definitely say that Bush does not act anything like a president of the party that says it is for small government should).

grsing

walkinaround: I only wind up in the conservative camp because I agree with them more than the "liberals" (in the modern American sense); as soon as they leave the room, I'm right into my (many) disagreements with modern conservatism. There are a lot of people in the US who don't really fit into either major party, but are somehow polarized, because identifying with a third party is pretty much fruitless, and you can only vote for them in good conscience if you're in a state that doesn't matter anyway.

GalavantingReprobate

Trust me, political debate is alive and well in the US. We speek freely and openly and if you think it is not so, I suggest you come see first hand rather than rely on biased media like the Guardian or Stern or Spiegel or LeMonde that tell you that the American media dares not criticize the administration. What rubbish. Name me one single person who is sitting in jail or paying a fine for criticizing the admin.
Meanwhile, fatwas are issued all over europe calling for the heads (literally) of some cartoonists. And official EURO dares not utter a peep in criticism of that.
When did life in Euroland become so UNFREE is the question you should be asking.
Speak out against Bush here and you'll probably be invited on a well paid speaking tour and become a celebrity, so oppressive has it become. sheesh.
As the Danish editor said: "free speech is free speech, there is no 'but'".
Sums it up nicely.

franco

Well, one difference between American policies of the past and that of George W. Bush on which it should be easy to agree is foreign politics; not only its intentions, but 1. its quality (which is more than poor thanks to this president and his advisors - if the USA had led World War II with as much intelligence as the war on Iraq, the current US president wouldn't perhaps be GWB but some German nazi) and 2. (and that leads back to the topic of this thread) its diplomatic style - it wasn't usual up to GWB that the US simply imposed their point of view upon their own allies without even wanting to discuss anything or hear any objections. And many of America's important allies are those European countries where Americans are likely to be asked about their attitude - towards their president, and that means, towards America's allies whose countries they are visiting!

GalavantingReprobate

Tracey -
you write:
<<
What really appalls me is how almost noone has publicly censured the student or his father. Their actions - the student surreptiously taped his teacher, and the father promptly distributed it to talk radio, without ever discussing it with the teacher or the school's principal - were terribly unethical.
>>

What exactly is 'terribly unethical' about this?
The teacher is a PUBLIC person, working for an organ of the state, a PUBLIC school, serving the PUBLIC. There is no way you can make a 'privacy' argument about making PUBLIC the words of a PUBLIC school teacher. He works for us, and should be accountable to us, not the other way round.

GalavantingReprobate

Franco -
Turns out these moral European powers were in bed deeply (France, Germany especially) with Saddam, so of course they didnt want to upset the apple cart.
Nobody seems to remember the 18 months wasted trying to get the UN on board, which as we now know was never gonna happen.
Read up on the oil for food scandal and the flouting of the sanctions by most Euro states.
They certainly did not oppose the war on any moral grounds. It was all about oil and money - for the Euros.
I, for one, am glad the dictator is deposed. It was a worthy goal.

franco

Btw, GalavantingReprobate, as much as I agree on what you wrote in your last posting on the Danish cartoon issue, your views on hate speech laws prove that poor American knowledge about Europe several posters here were referring to earlier; and even more so, your assertion that the European parliament wasn't elected. It is; in fact, it's the one and only elected body of the European union.

GalavantingReprobate

Franco -
I stand corrected. I should have said 'European Commission', not parliament.

franco

Reprobate,
my posting wasn't definitely on the INTENTION of the Iraq war. Questionable as the (public) motivation was (actually, based almost exclusively on lies), there is no doubt that it was a worthy goal to depose Mr. Hussein. But that's of no importance in a travel forum; what I was talking about is the attitude the government showed towards America's allies; a question of style, diplomacy and (social, not military) intelligence - and not the question whether or not to depose Mr. Hussein, or if yes why, and so on.