Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

TBH this is just evidence of Frazzled being a grumpy old man. Do you get that programme in the US? It's brilliant.

Frazzled wrote:Dogma you're being a bit of a smart A**, with that last statement. By that logic the government should limit EVERYTHING. Everything in excess will kill you. Too much oxygen, too much water, will kill you.

Yes, I am. And you're being a grumpy old man by pretending this is some grand, sweeping measure by the state to nationalize food production. This is non-binding, municipal legislation. Calling this evidence of the nanny state is like saying the 12 a.m. curfew for minors in my town is a sign that the federal government is about to start requiring papers to leave your home.

Frazzled wrote:
By that standard the government has carte blanche to govern and cocntrol everything. After all, the internet and free speech could be harmful to you-have to stop that. Gay intercourse could kill you-have to regulate that.

Oh well. I'll shut up now and kowtow to the government and people who actually think this is a good idea. After all, if you can't beat'em join 'em. How do I get to join the Party?

What's ironic is that you're terrified of the government, but not at all concerned about the major corporations which dictate what you eat by putting massive amounts of salt in virtually every foodstuff in this nation. At least the government is accountable to the populace. Corporations can do just about anything they please insofar as it keeps their product cheap.

dogma wrote:
the 12 a.m. curfew for minors in my town is a sign that the federal government is about to start requiring papers to leave your home.

Oh FFS! can't we keep anthing secret ! 'fess up..who blabbed.

The really odd mixture of "fear" ( not quite the right word but best I can do for the moment) and full support of the same organisation I see so many Americans express so often on this board I really quite can't my head around. You almost come across as a nation of bi-polars at times.

What is this "fear" ( see above) that is so ingrained seemingly on the USA psyche about ? You live in one of the most prosperous and ordered societies in the world, you have a good amount of well educated people, a built in series of checks and balances, but yet the amount of almost hysterical anti government posts I see I find genuinely quite baffling.

There is no one single answer to that question that will sum everything up about the US cultural psyche. I suppose a simple answer is that most American's were sold on the Revolution being about throwing off big government intervention and so still have a distrust of government. Part of the way our government works is that we don't trust anyone because an unwatched government makes power grabs. That being said it is also set up to allow for change, albeit slowly.

We are just as baffled as to why you would allow your governments so much control, so touche' pussicat!

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH this is just evidence of Frazzled being a grumpy old man. Do you get that programme in the US? It's brilliant.

Well Duh!!!

Ok lets see if I can get all these quotes right.

dogma wrote:
Yes, I am. And you're being a grumpy old man by pretending this is some grand, sweeping measure by the state to nationalize food production.

As noted above-DUH!!!!
I've been accused of channeling old man since I was 18.

What's ironic is that you're terrified of the government, but not at all concerned about the major corporations which dictate what you eat by putting massive amounts of salt in virtually every foodstuff in this nation. At least the government is accountable to the populace. Corporations can do just about anything they please insofar as it keeps their product cheap.

nah I don't trust corporations either. Now that I think about it, I'm a pretty paranoid mofo

Ahtman wrote:

We are just as baffled as to why you would allow your governments so much control, so touche' pussicat!

Oh, that's easy. we have unshakable faith and vast evidence in their ineptitude, so we know they might try to do something really terrible or horrific but we know they'll cock it right up.

Is the American Revolution still that big a part of the nation self image ? I would have thought that especially given the vast demographical and cultural shifts its impact would have been lesened considerably. Or do you think that the very loss or diminishment of this image is perhaps what frequently causes it to be clung to tighter.

I'd say the UK took a fair old time to move on from a WW II mindset in a lot of ways-- some good, some bad.

Every country loves its heroes.

Kilkrazy wrote:Every country loves its heroes.

Do you not think there is a real tendency in the UK to try to destroy or at least"knock down a peg or two" heroes or indeed anyone who is relatively successful ? Perhaps this is more a trait of the modern media.

And again given the current make up of the USA population I would have thought the original rebels would mean less. I'm often quite bemused at the number of people who define themselves as Italian/Irish/Russian/Country X-American, even if they've never been to "the old world".

I think a lot of our modern heroes have more feet of clay than in the old days.

I mean who are Britain's heroes these days? Jade Goody. Posh Spice. Colleen Rooney. Jordan.

It doesn't have quite the same resonance as the Duke of Wellington, Robin Hood, Winston Churchill or the Black Prince.

I think the initiative is good, and I hate the government snooping in my biz.

If it isn't salty enough for me, I can salt it to my own taste.

Simple as that.

I dont see why people are crying about how "Big Mother" is trying to get up in your face. its a health initiative they are asking food providers to go along with.

As a person who used to cook professionally before college, I know how salt is a flavor enhancing ingredient. but I have had a lot of customers actually ask the waitstaff to make sure that I held back on any salt I might add.

Seems to me the public is interested in this as well, as they should be.

If nothing else, provide the customer with a notice on the menu about the what they are eating an how much. When you go to the store food is required by law to disclose that in their labels, why should restaurants be exempt from this basic thing?

Ahtman wrote:There is no one single answer to that question that will sum everything up about the US cultural psyche. I suppose a simple answer is that most American's were sold on the Revolution being about throwing off big government intervention and so still have a distrust of government.

I think that's the most obvious reason. I also think that there is a certain regional distrust of the state that manifests itself in different ways. For instance, Texas has its own complicated, revolutionary history that almost demands that they believe in self-sufficiency. The Mason-Dixon South not only remembers the Civil War, but the incredible poverty that followed it, and the intervention of not only the federal government, but the Northern states during the Civil Rights Movement. The Mountain West, and Southwest, I think still hold onto the pioneer ethos more than any other part of the country. Both by virtue of historical connection, and the desire to keep their relatively pristine landscape free from human animals. To them larger government is a sign of a larger population, and they don't want that. California would fall into a similar mode of thought were it not for years of rule by their previous benevolent overlords, the Spanish. The Pacific Northwest is just strange, and Alaska isn't a real place.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think a lot of our modern heroes have more feet of clay than in the old days.

I mean who are Britain's heroes these days? Jade Goody. Posh Spice. Colleen Rooney. Jordan.

It doesn't have quite the same resonance as the Duke of Wellington, Robin Hood, Winston Churchill or the Black Prince.

That's the thing with the media, it deflates heroism by exposing the sordid details of heroic actions. The Black Prince would not have been a modern idol I think.

Hellfury wrote:

If nothing else, provide the customer with a notice on the menu about the what they are eating an how much. When you go to the store food is required by law to disclose that in their labels, why should restaurants be exempt from this basic thing?

Agreed on that.

I think that's the most obvious reason. I also think that there is a certain regional distrust of the state that manifests itself in different ways. For instance, Texas has its own complicated, revolutionary history that almost demands that they believe in self-sufficiency. The Mason-Dixon South not only remembers the Civil War, but the incredible poverty that followed it, and the intervention of not only the federal government, but the Northern states during the Civil Rights Movement. The Mountain West, and Southwest, I think still hold onto the pioneer ethos more than any other part of the country. Both by virtue of historical connection, and the desire to keep their relatively pristine landscape free from human animals. To them larger government is a sign of a larger population, and they don't want that. California would fall into a similar mode of thought were it not for years of rule by their previous benevolent overlords, the Spanish. The Pacific Northwest is just strange, and Alaska isn't a real place.

I think you've keyed into a lot of it Dogma.

reds8n wrote:

dogma wrote:
the 12 a.m. curfew for minors in my town is a sign that the federal government is about to start requiring papers to leave your home.

Oh FFS! can't we keep anthing secret ! 'fess up..who blabbed.

The really odd mixture of "fear" ( not quite the right word but best I can do for the moment) and full support of the same organisation I see so many Americans express so often on this board I really quite can't my head around. You almost come across as a nation of bi-polars at times.

What is this "fear" ( see above) that is so ingrained seemingly on the USA psyche about ? You live in one of the most prosperous and ordered societies in the world, you have a good amount of well educated people, a built in series of checks and balances, but yet the amount of almost hysterical anti government posts I see I find genuinely quite baffling.

For good reason. Like most other countries, our government is corrupt.
More often than not, it is fashionable for americans to play the "blame game" and point fingers all over the place. Our children are frequently uneducated and the parents blame the schools while the schools blame the parents. Circular logic for everyone! Yay!
Because we cant get a straight answer out of our politicians (karl rove is again subpoenaed, and he is quickly finding out that his shield of "The law protects me from having to talk to you" is longer going to float) we distrust anything and everything about the government, even though many people are willing to give up their civil liberties so that the government can play with our privacy (read: Patriot Act and Homeland Security) due to external fears and rather bluntly, xenophobia. An odd trait for a country who supposedly prides itself on the diversity of its makeup.

In a few words: Our country is really Effed up.

One thing to really keep in mind about the Revolution is that the key concern wasn't that there was a major government ruling them, it's that they had no stake in that government. Couple that with a century of virtual self governance before the French and Indian war (I forget what the brits call that one), and the AWI was less about freedom from government as it was freedom from having a government thrust upon them.

While the initial federal government was quite weak, it's partly a matter of design, partly a political necessity of the time (strong state governments were jealous of the Feds) and partly a logistical reality. Unlike the UK, with a small area and a well developed system of communications, the 13 colonies were large, underdeveloped and couldn't be effectively governed by any central authority (as Britain found out the hard way).

I think dogma was correct, and I think that my bit simply adds on to it.

More controversially, I'd suggest that since many of the major governmental initiatives of the past 75 years have been at the cost of the "haves" for the betterment of the "have nots," many people that are in the "haves" category become resentful at always being asked to give more to other people. It's not racism or classism or prejudice, but one can only be told so many times that there are people that need to helped before a person asks "who the hell is helping me?" That's an understandable sentiment, I just think that getting stuck in it can often hamper actual discussion of issues.

Frazzled wrote:

I think that's the most obvious reason. I also think that there is a certain regional distrust of the state that manifests itself in different ways. For instance, Texas has its own complicated, revolutionary history that almost demands that they believe in self-sufficiency. The Mason-Dixon South not only remembers the Civil War, but the incredible poverty that followed it, and the intervention of not only the federal government, but the Northern states during the Civil Rights Movement. The Mountain West, and Southwest, I think still hold onto the pioneer ethos more than any other part of the country. Both by virtue of historical connection, and the desire to keep their relatively pristine landscape free from human animals. To them larger government is a sign of a larger population, and they don't want that. California would fall into a similar mode of thought were it not for years of rule by their previous benevolent overlords, the Spanish. The Pacific Northwest is just strange, and Alaska isn't a real place.

I think you've keyed into a lot of it Dogma.

I also agree. Especially if the speaker were of southern persuasion speaking on their views about the rest of the country. In my 8 years of living in southern Tejas, this seems to be the consensus.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think a lot of our modern heroes have more feet of clay than in the old days.

I mean who are Britain's heroes these days? Jade Goody. Posh Spice. Colleen Rooney. Jordan.

It doesn't have quite the same resonance as the Duke of Wellington, Robin Hood, Winston Churchill or the Black Prince.

Good God, that's a depressing list of vapid media-created 'heroes'.

I think media reach would make it impossible for your set of actual heroes to be a s respected if they existed today (with the possible exception of Sir Winston)

Polonius wrote:One thing to really keep in mind about the Revolution is that the key concern wasn't that there was a major government ruling them, it's that they had no stake in that government. Couple that with a century of virtual self governance before the French and Indian war (I forget what the brits call that one), and the AWI was less about freedom from government as it was freedom from having a government thrust upon them.

While the initial federal government was quite weak, it's partly a matter of design, partly a political necessity of the time (strong state governments were jealous of the Feds) and partly a logistical reality. Unlike the UK, with a small area and a well developed system of communications, the 13 colonies were large, underdeveloped and couldn't be effectively governed by any central authority (as Britain found out the hard way).

I think dogma was correct, and I think that my bit simply adds on to it.

More controversially, I'd suggest that since many of the major governmental initiatives of the past 75 years have been at the cost of the "haves" for the betterment of the "have nots," many people that are in the "haves" category become resentful at always being asked to give more to other people. It's not racism or classism or prejudice, but one can only be told so many times that there are people that need to helped before a person asks "who the hell is helping me?" That's an understandable sentiment, I just think that getting stuck in it can often hamper actual discussion of issues.

If you look at British and US political history there is a discontinuous development of full enfranchisement taking place over 200 years or more. I have in mind the extension of the franchise to men over 30 owning more then £100 of property or whatever, all men over 21, all men including non-whites, all women, and so on. In short , 200 years ago democracy was a lot more limited than it was by the time of WW2.

During the 20th century, the effects of WW1, the Great Depression and WW2 were to open up class mobility and broadly to follow the extension of the franchise with redistribution of wealth, better education, better public health and so on.

This came to a halt in the mid to late 70s, probably ushered in by the Oil Shock. Since then, what might generally be called the right wing has been in the ascendant. The wage gap has widened. Free education has been stopped. Public pensions have been eroded. Taxes have been reduced. Huge handouts have been given to supposedly rich industries, which have continued to lay off workers.

Many of my details are not accurate however the broad thrust is true.

Nutritional value is plastered on every article of food for a reason.

Since Mayor Bloomberg thinks that people are too stupid to read it, I'm kind of offended.