British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il · US allies think Washington threat to world peace · Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom Julian Glover Friday November 3, 2006 Guardian America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq. Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US. The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country. It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security. The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy. Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped. Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference. Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004. In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened. As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush. The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%). Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not. Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65. · ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010) http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/print/0,,329617605-110878,00.html --- "We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her power-to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the respect to all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a lifetime-these are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." - Adlai Stevenson's 'Nature of Patriotism' Speech, 1952

It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea by Mac Johnson Posted Mar 13, 2006 For a political junkie, the Dubai ports debacle has been a bit like the movie "Pulp Fiction"-just one freaky story inside another, unfolding at a rapid pace and leading to an unexpected ending that made no darn sense and yet was really quite satisfying emotionally. I give it two thumbs way up. Unfortunately for the President, he played the part of "Marcellus Wallace" in "Port Fiction." He talked tough at the start of the whole thing, but really took it hard in the end. (Bada bing!) And along the way we got to see Chuck Schumer support racial profiling, Hillary Clinton claim to be concerned about national security, Lawrence Kudlow play the (Arab) race card, Fred Barnes complain that some conservatives were too cantankerous, and Rush Limbaugh congratulate his own audience for defeating him. Now that's a movie that should have got an Oscar! Two of the subplots really stood out in my mind though. One was how eagerly the disciples of "free" trade took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn't be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I'm sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time. Whatever their motivation, they came across as nothing less than petty and absurd. The restructuring of the world economy and the American legal landscape by the proponents of free trade over the last two decades has been nothing short of a revolution-and it was all made possible, ultimately, by the votes of the fly-over country conservatives with whom Kudlow and company have shared a big tent for so long. And yet at the first sign of hesitation or reluctance to indulge further on mom and pop's part, the free trade faithful turned on them with epithets and disdain. According to some pinstriped pundits, the most open nation on earth, at the most internationalist time in its history, is suddenly and dismissively labeled "xenophobic," "isolationist," "protectionist," "nativist," "racist" and "ignorant" of the fact that world is global, or some such insight. Given 99% of everything they want, some free traders turned petulantly on their enablers over the 1% they didn't get. This behavior is very familiar to anyone who has small children. You can take them to the park, the mall, the museum, a game, an arcade, an ice cream shop, McDonald's and Chuck E Cheese's, then after spending the whole day and $200 on them, you tell them it's time to go home and they explode into tears and theatrics while flopping about on the floor calling you "a meanie," which is like "xenophobic," but without the overeducated pretense. And what was the tone-deaf expectation behind conservatives of any stripe, pin or otherwise, playing the race card in an internal political debate? Perhaps, like an abused child who grows up to be a child abuser, the name callers thought that they might get the same sort of instant capitulation from their base that they are used to giving to Democrats and the media when they themselves are accused of racism-or of just having used the word "niggardly" in a college essay once. Way to solidify the base! Why not just say that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party," or "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people"? When some in the party start sounding like Howard Dean while bashing the rest of it, it could be time to take a deep breath. The second subplot that really stood out to me, is how clueless many in the Republican Party are to the true source of public misgiving about the port deal. This does not bode well for avoiding a repeat of the debacle in the near future. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the average voter does not normally concern himself with the minutiae of cargo management and port personnel. So why the big opinion all of a sudden over Dubai Ports World? Well, in my opinion this is sort of like an argument in a marriage. It may have started over a specific incident, but it's really about something else and has been building for a long time. This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct-economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better. But the problem is that all nations are more than just economic systems. They are each somebody's home. And each has a culture, and a language, and a set of common ideals that they want protected-even more than they want another 0.3% added to next year's GDP. Some things matter more than the economic opportunity cost we pay for having them. The American Revolution, for example, was bad for the economy while it was under way. But that was not really the point of the whole thing, was it? The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power-both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the "inevitable" rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, "Stop! They're saying "OK, we've tried it your way and it never seems to end. No amount of globalization, tolerance, equalization, outsourcing, internationalism, interventionism, human smuggling, and security risk is ever enough. There is always a push for more-even before the last round has proven itself wise or foolish. Treaty piles upon treaty, migration upon migration, integration upon integration. Now people want a break and a reassessment. They're not sure they are against it all. They're just no longer sure they're still for it. It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream. They are sick of every street corner and parking lot being filled with criminal aliens waiting to work off the books and outside the laws that are applied so enthusiastically to actual Americans. They are sick of pressing "1" for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday. They are sick of hearing that America is just an economic opportunity zone and not a distinct nation, a culture-their home. They are sick of being told that human beings are interchangeable parts, that the nation-state is passé, that there are some jobs that Americans just won't do, that there are some contracts that Americans just won't bid, and that any cost that cannot be measured in money cannot be very important. They are sick of having the world purposely knit together in a tighter tangle everyday and then being told we are so entangled that America must now run the whole world and solve all its problems. And they are sick of being called ignorant and racist and xenophobic just for having the temerity to raise questions when abstract trade theory conflicts with their common sense. And they want a break. They want some breathing room and some limits; and they don't want to hear elitist children cry themselves hoarse after all they've been given already. If absolute globalization really is inevitable, it doesn't need such a vociferous lobby. It will happen at its own organic pace. Trying to force it prematurely will just cause a backlash here and abroad-as it already has from Van Nuys to Venezuela to Vladivostok. And if it is not inevitable, then it needs to be justified beyond the boardroom and the lecture hall. It may not be something that everyone wants to pay the costs of, whatever benefits it may bring to our bank accounts and stock exchanges. Soon, Congress will consider a new illegal immigration bill. Failure to acknowledge the new mood in the country could break the Republican Party. Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Tuesdays. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com. Wayne LaPierre's response to Britain's International Network on Small Arms: A: (Wayne La Pierre) You know, a lot of your countrymen are disagreeing with you, and every statistic that I have from your government says just the opposite. That the UK now leads the US by a large margin in assaults, robberies, burglaries, all types of violent crime. Your laws now give the home invader a head up, a hand up on the homeowner. The homeowner tries to defend himself, he's probably going to go to jail. Every statistic I've seen here in this country, your violent crime is rising, and ours in the United States is going down. The other point I'd like to make is a firearm's a tool. It doesn't jump off of a table and do something bad. It's a tool. Ms Peters, I heard her, you know, talk about the fact that, my gosh, look at all this that's happening, you know? So a gun's invented only to kill people. A gun, if it's misused, yes, it can kill someone. And that's why you want to be very tough. No sympathy. Throw him in jail. For someone that misuses a gun for life. That's good with me. They want to coddle criminals. That's another thing on their agenda. But a gun can also save a person's life. If a criminal is breaking down their door it may very well save the victim's life. It can be used for hunting. It can be used for recreation. It can be used for sport. We at the NRA had 50,000 safety instructors, 35,000 shooting and hunting clubs, 9,000 law enforcement instructors, and we have put 17 million kids through our Eddie Eagle Child Safety Program, and we have got accidents down to the lowest level ever in U.S. history. And we are leading the way in the United States to arm good people, prosecute bad people, throw the book at them, put them in jail for a long, long time, and that makes people safe. "Imperialist Watch" <bushcheneysuck@craigslist.org> wrote in message news:Pk%4h.33904$39.25957@southeast.rr.com... > British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il > · US allies think Washington threat to world peace > · Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom > > Julian Glover > Friday November 3, 2006 > > Guardian > > America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours > and > allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published > today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among > former supporters since the invasion of Iraq. > Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an > election > dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see > George > Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean > leader, > Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries > were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it > is > Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links > to the US. > > The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading > newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and > Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each > country. > > It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned > say > they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only > 7% > thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security. > > The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern > neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans > saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy. > > Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national > security, support for the US has slipped. > > Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, > outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of > international > conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no > difference. > > Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject > the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to > 34% > against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar > survey before the US presidential election in 2004. > > In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view > shared > by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose > troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has > helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the > justifications > for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think > that has happened. > > As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a > cause > of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four > countries, > but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the > al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% > who think this of Mr Bush. > > The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more > dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the > North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah > (65%). > > Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. > Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he > represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not. > > Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly > more > hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more > trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65. > > · ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from > October > 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have > been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada > (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010) > > http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/print/0,,329617605-110878,00.html > > --- > "We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by patriotism in > the > context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of > national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her > power-to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the > respect to all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a > patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the > tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a > lifetime-these are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty > assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up > to them." - Adlai Stevenson's 'Nature of Patriotism' Speech, 1952 > > begin 666 clip_image002.gif M1TE&.#EA`0`%`'<`,2'^&E-O9G1W87)E.B!-:6-R;W-O9G0@3V9F:6-E`"'Y <! $`````+ `````!``$`@ ````$"`P("1 $`.P`` ` end

British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il · US allies think Washington threat to world peace · Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom Julian Glover Friday November 3, 2006 Guardian America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq. Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US. The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country. It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security. The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy. Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped. Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference. Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004. In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened. As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush. The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%). Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not. Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65. · ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010) http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/print/0,,329617605-110878,00.html --- "We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her power-to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the respect to all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a lifetime-these are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." - Adlai Stevenson's 'Nature of Patriotism' Speech, 1952

It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea by Mac Johnson Posted Mar 13, 2006 For a political junkie, the Dubai ports debacle has been a bit like the movie "Pulp Fiction"-just one freaky story inside another, unfolding at a rapid pace and leading to an unexpected ending that made no darn sense and yet was really quite satisfying emotionally. I give it two thumbs way up. Unfortunately for the President, he played the part of "Marcellus Wallace" in "Port Fiction." He talked tough at the start of the whole thing, but really took it hard in the end. (Bada bing!) And along the way we got to see Chuck Schumer support racial profiling, Hillary Clinton claim to be concerned about national security, Lawrence Kudlow play the (Arab) race card, Fred Barnes complain that some conservatives were too cantankerous, and Rush Limbaugh congratulate his own audience for defeating him. Now that's a movie that should have got an Oscar! Two of the subplots really stood out in my mind though. One was how eagerly the disciples of "free" trade took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn't be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I'm sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time. Whatever their motivation, they came across as nothing less than petty and absurd. The restructuring of the world economy and the American legal landscape by the proponents of free trade over the last two decades has been nothing short of a revolution-and it was all made possible, ultimately, by the votes of the fly-over country conservatives with whom Kudlow and company have shared a big tent for so long. And yet at the first sign of hesitation or reluctance to indulge further on mom and pop's part, the free trade faithful turned on them with epithets and disdain. According to some pinstriped pundits, the most open nation on earth, at the most internationalist time in its history, is suddenly and dismissively labeled "xenophobic," "isolationist," "protectionist," "nativist," "racist" and "ignorant" of the fact that world is global, or some such insight. Given 99% of everything they want, some free traders turned petulantly on their enablers over the 1% they didn't get. This behavior is very familiar to anyone who has small children. You can take them to the park, the mall, the museum, a game, an arcade, an ice cream shop, McDonald's and Chuck E Cheese's, then after spending the whole day and $200 on them, you tell them it's time to go home and they explode into tears and theatrics while flopping about on the floor calling you "a meanie," which is like "xenophobic," but without the overeducated pretense. And what was the tone-deaf expectation behind conservatives of any stripe, pin or otherwise, playing the race card in an internal political debate? Perhaps, like an abused child who grows up to be a child abuser, the name callers thought that they might get the same sort of instant capitulation from their base that they are used to giving to Democrats and the media when they themselves are accused of racism-or of just having used the word "niggardly" in a college essay once. Way to solidify the base! Why not just say that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party," or "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people"? When some in the party start sounding like Howard Dean while bashing the rest of it, it could be time to take a deep breath. The second subplot that really stood out to me, is how clueless many in the Republican Party are to the true source of public misgiving about the port deal. This does not bode well for avoiding a repeat of the debacle in the near future. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the average voter does not normally concern himself with the minutiae of cargo management and port personnel. So why the big opinion all of a sudden over Dubai Ports World? Well, in my opinion this is sort of like an argument in a marriage. It may have started over a specific incident, but it's really about something else and has been building for a long time. This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct-economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better. But the problem is that all nations are more than just economic systems. They are each somebody's home. And each has a culture, and a language, and a set of common ideals that they want protected-even more than they want another 0.3% added to next year's GDP. Some things matter more than the economic opportunity cost we pay for having them. The American Revolution, for example, was bad for the economy while it was under way. But that was not really the point of the whole thing, was it? The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power-both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the "inevitable" rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, "Stop! They're saying "OK, we've tried it your way and it never seems to end. No amount of globalization, tolerance, equalization, outsourcing, internationalism, interventionism, human smuggling, and security risk is ever enough. There is always a push for more-even before the last round has proven itself wise or foolish. Treaty piles upon treaty, migration upon migration, integration upon integration. Now people want a break and a reassessment. They're not sure they are against it all. They're just no longer sure they're still for it. It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream. They are sick of every street corner and parking lot being filled with criminal aliens waiting to work off the books and outside the laws that are applied so enthusiastically to actual Americans. They are sick of pressing "1" for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday. They are sick of hearing that America is just an economic opportunity zone and not a distinct nation, a culture-their home. They are sick of being told that human beings are interchangeable parts, that the nation-state is passé, that there are some jobs that Americans just won't do, that there are some contracts that Americans just won't bid, and that any cost that cannot be measured in money cannot be very important. They are sick of having the world purposely knit together in a tighter tangle everyday and then being told we are so entangled that America must now run the whole world and solve all its problems. And they are sick of being called ignorant and racist and xenophobic just for having the temerity to raise questions when abstract trade theory conflicts with their common sense. And they want a break. They want some breathing room and some limits; and they don't want to hear elitist children cry themselves hoarse after all they've been given already. If absolute globalization really is inevitable, it doesn't need such a vociferous lobby. It will happen at its own organic pace. Trying to force it prematurely will just cause a backlash here and abroad-as it already has from Van Nuys to Venezuela to Vladivostok. And if it is not inevitable, then it needs to be justified beyond the boardroom and the lecture hall. It may not be something that everyone wants to pay the costs of, whatever benefits it may bring to our bank accounts and stock exchanges. Soon, Congress will consider a new illegal immigration bill. Failure to acknowledge the new mood in the country could break the Republican Party. Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Tuesdays. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com. Wayne LaPierre's response to Britain's International Network on Small Arms: A: (Wayne La Pierre) You know, a lot of your countrymen are disagreeing with you, and every statistic that I have from your government says just the opposite. That the UK now leads the US by a large margin in assaults, robberies, burglaries, all types of violent crime. Your laws now give the home invader a head up, a hand up on the homeowner. The homeowner tries to defend himself, he's probably going to go to jail. Every statistic I've seen here in this country, your violent crime is rising, and ours in the United States is going down. The other point I'd like to make is a firearm's a tool. It doesn't jump off of a table and do something bad. It's a tool. Ms Peters, I heard her, you know, talk about the fact that, my gosh, look at all this that's happening, you know? So a gun's invented only to kill people. A gun, if it's misused, yes, it can kill someone. And that's why you want to be very tough. No sympathy. Throw him in jail. For someone that misuses a gun for life. That's good with me. They want to coddle criminals. That's another thing on their agenda. But a gun can also save a person's life. If a criminal is breaking down their door it may very well save the victim's life. It can be used for hunting. It can be used for recreation. It can be used for sport. We at the NRA had 50,000 safety instructors, 35,000 shooting and hunting clubs, 9,000 law enforcement instructors, and we have put 17 million kids through our Eddie Eagle Child Safety Program, and we have got accidents down to the lowest level ever in U.S. history. And we are leading the way in the United States to arm good people, prosecute bad people, throw the book at them, put them in jail for a long, long time, and that makes people safe. "Imperialist Watch" <bushcheneysuck@craigslist.org> wrote in message news:Pk%4h.33904$39.25957@southeast.rr.com... > British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il > · US allies think Washington threat to world peace > · Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom > > Julian Glover > Friday November 3, 2006 > > Guardian > > America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours > and > allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published > today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among > former supporters since the invasion of Iraq. > Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an > election > dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see > George > Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean > leader, > Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries > were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it > is > Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links > to the US. > > The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading > newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and > Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each > country. > > It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned > say > they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only > 7% > thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security. > > The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern > neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans > saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy. > > Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national > security, support for the US has slipped. > > Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, > outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of > international > conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no > difference. > > Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject > the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to > 34% > against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar > survey before the US presidential election in 2004. > > In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view > shared > by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose > troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has > helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the > justifications > for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think > that has happened. > > As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a > cause > of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four > countries, > but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the > al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% > who think this of Mr Bush. > > The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more > dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the > North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah > (65%). > > Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. > Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he > represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not. > > Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly > more > hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more > trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65. > > · ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from > October > 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have > been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada > (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010) > > http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/print/0,,329617605-110878,00.html > > --- > "We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by patriotism in > the > context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of > national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her > power-to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the > respect to all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a > patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the > tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a > lifetime-these are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty > assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up > to them." - Adlai Stevenson's 'Nature of Patriotism' Speech, 1952 > > begin 666 clip_image002.gif M1TE&.#EA`0`%`'<`,2'^&E-O9G1W87)E.B!-:6-R;W-O9G0@3V9F:6-E`"'Y <! $`````+ `````!``$`@ ````$"`P("1 $`.P`` ` end