As a European I have to say, that I associate these sort of things with totalitarian regimes and it is just unimaginable for me why the American society tolerates this while fighting for democracy elsewhere.
It's not that we tolerate it, it's that our voting populace is largely single issue voters and don't really care about whether the next president wants to remove the Patriot Act. They care about social issues like reproductive rights. Added to mostly binary voting (two party system) means you only have two real choices that are polar opposites on the hot button social issues.
I think in the end it comes down to the way the parties are funded. With state financed parties and regulations to cut costs of campaigns, smaller parties would have better chances to gain traction. The problem is that nobody currently in charge has the slightest interest to do as he would cut of his own monopoly to the financing. Maybe you could start by sneaking in some clever cost-cutting tricks for the campaigns.
It's sad how much advertising plays into elections. It comes down to living in a society where most people are pretty dumb and make voting decisions based on a 15 second commercial and biased journalism.
What part of the world are you from? Here in Canada, if you were to say "Canada is in America", it would sound as strange as saying "Spain is in France". To Canadians, America only ever refers to The United States of America.
I know that you use the word that way. Nevertheless it is correct to say, that Canada is in America and I used the fact to address both countries, because as far as I know, on US borders similar things can happen. Unfortunately my genius plan did not take into account that Europe is currently asleep and Americans (and Canadians !) are down-voting the posts now.
Wrote a comment recently which incidentally and obliquely implied in passing that people are in control of their own body weight, a proposition which I believe within some limited contexts.
It went up to +15 overnight when the Europeans were awake. Then right back down to +5 when the Americans woke up. Got some kind of nasty comments back, too. I'm surprised that it makes so much difference.
Canada skipped out on the 2003 Iraq war and subsequent occupation, but it was part of the Afghan mission all along, in the NATO mission in Libya, and many others. Now my take on these is that they are fights for the neoliberal order, not democracy, but I thought I'd answer in the spirit of the question.
I would argue that articles like these indicate, that the people of Europe indeed have more power as citizens than people of other countries. I do not see how Europe would benefit from being a superpower again.
If you have nothing to hide, then invasive surveillance doesn't hurt you.
If the alternative to invasive surveillance is terrorists flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands of innocent people, then a little extra hassle at the airport is a small price to pay.
That's how most people think. Finding the incorrect implicit assumptions made by these arguments is left as an exercise to the reader.
"If you have nothing to hide, then invasive surveillance doesn't hurt you."
Easily countered with "So what's your email account and password?".
(I love watching the logical contortions that come out next "Well I didn't mean _I've_ got nothing to hide! Or I didn't mean I don't have the right to hide it from _you_ Or or or... Think of the _chiiiiiildren!!! You're probably a terrorist!")
Yeah, with torture etc., because of course we are only doing it to the bad guys to save lives and so on.
But this affects your own people even those people, that have enough money to fly out of your massive country and not some messy and suspective underclass.
Again, it's different when we do it. Especially when we think we have nothing to hide.
We heard cries about how bad things were on the other side of the Iron Curtain, while we led a witch-hunt on our own people.
When the commies spied on themselves people for The Greater Good, it was evil; but when we spy on ourselves for Freedom and Advertising, it is different.
Honestly, if you have enough money to not be part of some messy and suspective underclass, why would you give a shit? If you actually cared, you have enough money to subvert a dragnet or the consequences that might arise from it.
You can live in the Manhattan/SF superclass bubble or any other bubble around the world. You'll be spied on just as much here as anywhere. At home, you probably know someone in intelligence who can give you some good insider info, though.
They don't fight for democracy elsewhere. They fight for dominion and economic subjugation of those people.
They fight for the right to buy up all their mining and oil rights, set up Walmarts and McDonalds, subject them to Hollywood movies and American music, and convince them they need to buy iPhones and iPads for every person in their household...
Canada is located on America (North America, to be more specific). I'm not trying to start the old argument about the use of the word America here, but under the dictionary definition of the word Canadian society is an American society.
I was indeed referring to both Canada (because of this article) and the US (because of previously read articles) and therefore used your continents name in anticipation of comments like this.
The continent is North America. If you want North and South America, Americas is fine, but must be plural. You're being simultaneously pedantic and wrong.
I love how strong you all feel about this. Just relax.
I am from Deutschland, but most people on the world call it either by a too general term Germania - and nobody in Denmark, Austria or the Netherlands is offended - or the too specific term Allemannia - and nobody in Switzerland is offended. In English you even use your own names for German cities (Cologne, Munich etc.) and the people there do not give a crap.
Wikipedia is a great resource in general, but it fails in places. For example, none of the 3 sources cited for that usage of America agree with that. One points out that America (singular) can mean any of N America, S America, or the USA (but not both N and S America). The second doesn't refer to America singular at all, instead clarifying usage of "American". The third gives us some historical context - America was used to mean N + S America, but only prior to the 18th century.
I will admit that if you are from the 17th century, your confusion is reasonable, but I question how you found HN.
More importantly, at least 95% of the English-speaking world disagrees with you, and that's the real test of language and definitions.
I'm curious - in what way is Germany not an appropriate name? My understanding is that it's a translation of Deutschland, and considered an exact synonym. I'll admit that hundreds of years ago Germany or Germania meant something different from modern-day Deutschland, but I fail to see how that's relevant.
Germany is the biggest Germanic country (population-wise) but the Dutch and others are Germanians, too. Much like the US is the biggest American country, but Canadians are Americans, too. It would be weird to use the word "Germane" in German for Germans, because we would picture some wild guys fighting Romans. For the same reason, you do not call the French Gallian or the Italian Roman.
I indeed said "American" and at least cited some sort of source instead of claiming that you are "95%" wrong, but lets keep it with this. I mentioned the German-story anecdotally. Nobody really cares. Names are just words, you can just relax, when its clear, what the word was intended to say.
I promise to add a "North" the next time and hope, that I will not get chased by angry Mexicans.
