In which the Bitter Guy reaches across the border

[thebitterguy]

In the wake of South Toronto Gate, YHB has decided to reach out to the stalwart representatives of some place in another country and offer him gentle counsel.

To wit, since this is pretty fucking common, I bring to you The Bitter Form Letter for Stupid Foreign Politicians Who Need to Step Back, Shut Up and Think:

Dear Foreign Politician:

I realize in this modern era of sound bites and short attention spans, it's important for back benchers such as yourself to attempt to grasp some relevance and importance to impress the voters come election time.

In the future, however, I think that, for your own sake, you attempt to grasp some of the intricacies of [Field of Knowledge] before you open your mouth.

Trust me, we're getting well acquainted with the concept of 'politicians talking about things they don't understand and looking stupid'. Apparently not as well as you, personally, are but we lack only experience.

So, please, allow me to make the simple suggestion of not talking about things you don't understand. Yes, I know, this will be very very hard. But, if you take former 'talking' time, and turn it into 'learning' time, you can become a much stronger person to represent your own [representational region].

Yours,

TheBitterGuy

Comments

[mr-weasel.livejournal.com]

That rocks on toast!

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

Your intent is noble, but all the Republicans have is fear of terrorism so they're going to spin anything they can find 24/7 between now and the midterm elections.

[thebitterguy]

Hopefully the cogs in the spin machine have begun to wind down. We'll see.

Will it make a difference, though, if the elections do turn things around?

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

It'll make some. At least when all three branches of government are not controlled by one party, they spend more time fighting amongst themselves than inflicting their whims on the rest of us. :)

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

The Double-Ewe is way down in the polls, and all Congressional Republicans up for re-election this fall are running scared.

They'll say anything to look like they are the ones doing something about national security, even though it was under their watch the events of 9/11 took place.


::B::

Justin, I must humbly remind you...

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

...that while I whole-heartedly laud your attempts to deal with Yankee Stupidity (so loud and defening that it deserves that capitalisation that I gave it) with the kind and time hounoured Canadian tradition of explanation and understanding, that for your attempt to make any headway at all, it assumes that the Americans read.

They don't read. They just *hear* - and they *hear* only themselves, and even then only the portion that are aligned to them in their bigotry politically.

In the words of the British who had to first deal with this phenomenon as, literally, boatloads of Americans washed up on their shore, had sex with their women, fired then guns off into the air and then congratulated themselves for singlehandedly winning the Second World War in Europe, I offer this simple truism:

"You can always tell an American - you just can't TELL them anything..."

As ever I respect your attempts to make them just that little bit more Canadian.

A counter-reminder

[dewline.livejournal.com]

I have made the friendly acquaintance of more than enough Americans alive and frustrated as Hell with the present circumstances themselves to put the lie to that saying. I think many such Americans are already halfway Canadian as it stands.

And then there's that infamous post-2004 joke election map, as untruthful as it often seems when you dig deep enough into their election stats...

Re: A counter-reminder

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

Truth is relative.

The Truth is that Al Gore won the 2000 election.

Re: A counter-reminder

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

Whether or not he did win it, he has not been president of the united states, and I think it is largely self-evident that he never will be. Hence, the relevance of his debatable victory to presnet concerns is, at best, limited.

Also, a counter-point to the above.

Your definitions of Canadians and Americans above are hopelessly limited, narrow and unhelpful to any sort of ongoing discussion of political issues. I'll give you sufficient credit that I'll assume you knew that before you made such statements, for only a lobotomized chimp or a political pundit (which is much the same thing, regardless of political affiliation... the only difference is that it has a microphone) say such things in earnest.

Re: A counter-reminder

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

would</I) say such things in earnest. Apparently I'm a lobotomized blogger, which may well be on a similar plane to the aforementioned chimps.

Re: A counter-reminder

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

You've done a wonderful job of proving my point.

Thank you.

Re: A counter-reminder

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

Ah insults.

Looks like I'm not so far off in my general impression of Americans at all.

Re: A counter-reminder

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

What I meant was this: I gave credit that you were speaking at least somewhat in hyperbole rather than on the assumption that your statements had universal truth regarding all Americans. Apparently, you were not. My point was not intended as a direct insult to you unless your stance was such. Apparently it is, though I had hoped it was not.

Note that your initial statements, as I pointed out, were narrow. They were clearly insulting and reductive. You lack access to the moral high ground in this regard.

I have not attacked Canadians or even people whose political opinions differ from mine, only rabid pundits.

Re: A counter-reminder

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

I was, in fact, speaking in hyperbole. This doesn't change the fact that you took the first opportunity you could to insult those who engage in punditry. Besides, as I am neither a political pundit, nor someone who has contracted any viral infections at all, unless you were deeply engaged in your own hyperbole, then it's rather clear you weren't speaking about me.

But if you were or indeed are engaged in such hyperbole, why belabour the same with such an insulting tone? While I know that it's not likely that any of us will weep a little for the wounded pundits, there is a tone there that belies the otherwise reasonable nature of your reminder. I quite agree with you in that there is no moral high ground in insults of any kind, whether they be directed at a entire nationality, or a select group of long winded members of the same. Your assertions to my foibles are hardly well reasoned if you're looking at one hyperbolic statement that I've made and then assuming you may judge my morality from what little was stated, and stated in hyperbole.

In fact, if this is what happened, and I daresay it did, maybe my earlier repetition of the generalisations made by those hosting Americans in the Second World War might not be quite so innaccurate at all concerning the assumptive nature of what an American ear can hear.

I really couldn't say either way because I am neither a pundit, nor a British citizen hosting American soldiers ("Over loud, overbearing and 'Over Here'..."), nor an American myself.

Re: A counter-reminder

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

I will concede that I was overly caustic in tone and I daresay that there has been no need for the degree of hyperbole which either of us has indulged in. I shall not endeavor to excuse it, as there is little profit for either of us in my making such an attempt. I am certainly at fault in that regard, and I am not above (beneath might be a more appropriate term) acknowledging that while the point behind the initial comment was sound, my choice of words was most definitely ill-considered.

I make no assumption about your moral stature based on one exaggerated statement, though the statement itself was problematic. A short spate of posts on a blog are not likely to reveal the sum of somebody's moral fibre.

Re: A counter-reminder

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

Quite fair.