Hitchens at his best, messing with this technocrat rat bastard. Henry the K. deserves a dark after-life if there is such a thing.

the other day i heard hitch lamenting the fact that he might croak out before being able to write an excoriating fuck-you obit for this war criminal motherfucker. proof of no god = hitch gets cancer while kissinger continues to thrive as an elder statesmen.

sure makes one wonder.

Fucking Gary. Always thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

Someone needs to stuff the loudmouth in an oven.

bruenning -- it amounts to lameass mushy liberal relativism to so easily reject the notion 'that the U.S. is somehow different, or better in any way, from the rest of the world'

'better in any way' -- tell that to a homosexual in iran. or a woman. or a jew in saudi arabia. or a christian in somalia. a cop in juarez. etc etc etc etc etc etc

shit, just tell it to anyone on the right or left who has enjoyed the right to debate and discuss the islamic center that, yes, will be built a few blocks from ground zero.

to be genuinely appalled by kissinger (as is hitch, simon, and myself) is not to be naive re: american corruption and/or history, but to refuse to be jaded and, yes, try and call attention to and stamp out this shit wherever it rears its head. to simply shrug at kissinger making backdoor deals with the vietnamese thus prolonging that awful war as simply 'what has always been done' (which seems to be your attitude) is to accept human atrocity.

my analogy might be intentionally incendiary and a bit unfair, but drawn to its natural conclusion your "america is the same as everywhere else. andrew jackson in 1810s & saddam hussein in 1980s = same shit. kissinger = any other badman." seems, not only intellectually fraudulent, but a call to inaction. fuck that shit.

My reaction was one of incredulity of a person holding the US up on a pedestal for somehow being immune to Corruption, specifically because it is perceived as being "better" than those other countries.

Maybe Erik Simon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've misinterpreted him here. Or at least you've read into what he's saying more than I did. He only said that America is at its worst when government corruption is 'allowed' (for lack of a better word) to run rampant. You seem to take this to mean that he supposed America might be immune to corruption. I'm not sure I understand the correlation between what he said and what you are saying.

And his original point (as I understand it) is that he has an emotional connection to this nation (obviously, at least partly, because he lives here as opposed to 'over there') that makes this nation's failings more disappointing than another's -- which is no more controversial than being more disappointed by one's friends' or family's failings than those of an acquaintance or stranger.

Of course, Erik should speak for himself on this, but in the actual substance of his review there is not even an intimation of the American exceptionalism you seem to infer. All he says is that he loves this country and therefore expects more from it than from other countries. So what exactly is surprising about that? When America acts badly, I am more embarrassed by it than I am when, say, China acts badly.

you've created a straw man, bruenning.
and i ain't it.
you seem to be arguing a phantom; responding to someone you wish was easy to categorize and trap. it ain't me, babe. it ain't me you're looking for.


1. "My reaction was one of incredulity of a person holding the US up on a pedestal for somehow being immune to Corruption, specifically because it is perceived as being "better" than those other countries. Including Britian.

It is an assertion I disagree with, and one you apparently agree with."


nowhere in my message did i even allude to 'apparently agreeing with' anything like this. i've gotta believe you know this and simply used it as a debate tactic. you're far too astute a reader for the alternative - that you totally misread what i wrote - to be true.


2. "Your example of homosexuality in Iran is what it is. Awful. My answer to you is that I would rather be a homosexual in Iran, than to have been a member of a family in any of the past 3 generations of people in Afganistan, or any other third world country where US interests have drastically altered their quality of life, including Vietnam."

your 'answer', again, is to a never-asked question. i reference iran, somalia, mexico, etc, only to disprove your assertion quoted here:

"My main problem is the thinking that the U.S. is somehow different, or better in any way, from the rest of the world."

my point was to say that we are different. and in many ways we are better. if sweden can, and should, say that they are 'better' in the particular way that they have a lower per capita infant mortality rate, shouldn't we be able to say we're different/better than iran in terms of stoning homosexuals to death? this seems elementary. and true.



3. "I do not think it would be wrong to say that if we were trying to quantify the cause of human suffering by responsible party over the past 50 years, the United States would probably be in the lead. Would you agree?"

this seems a childish way to approach the world, huh? 'would probably be in the lead.' um, no. i definitely do not think we would be. but it's irrelevant. whether #1 or #100 on the list, we should always try and do better. the entire enterprise of trying to 'quantify the cause of human suffering' is, um, 'corrupt'


4. "I wold also appreciate it if you could do that without using the word "Enlightenment." Because that shit is tired."

okay. wasn't planning on it. must've been that straw man you planned on tangling with.



5. "I am asking you, brian, to tell me why I am better than those people in other countries."

well, you're kind of pitching it right down the middle aren't you? i'm at pains not to respond as such:

'No no no. You, Jon Bruenning, are most definitely NOT better than any person in any other country.'

but i resist temptation.
b/c i don't understand why you'd ask the question.
did i even allude to the belief that an american person is necessarily better than a person of any other nationality?


sorry this post is so slippery.
in your response to the straw man, you left little to hold on to.

Wow. Look what I've started. Let me clarify, although Lord David did well for me. I do not suffer from exceptionalism. In fact, we are like every other empire, and I've been spouting that, unoriginally, for years. And when I say corruption, I know it exists. But it's one thing to be a Congressman and get campaign contributions from some construction company that you then hire for a Federal job. I'm actually okay with that. It's how things get done. But it's quite another to be a Secretary of State who encourages and funds the Indonesian massacre of the East Timorese and then sit on the Board of a company that makes billions through mining in East Timor. That's another level of corruption, and that's profound. And appalling. And as Brian noted: to sabotage the '68 peace talks so your guy can get elected, and then, four years and millions of bodies later, come back to the table with the same deal you had in '68. Again, I know we're corrupt, but what Kissinger did took it to another level.

So let me focus this once again, before I give up completely. I think what I have been saying has been pretty consistent. The people of the US are no better than people anywhere else, and our seat of comfort on the world stage is not a result being better than anyone else.

So in response to this:
nowhere in my message did i even allude to 'apparently agreeing with' anything like this.

I would say you did.
bruenning -- it amounts to lameass mushy liberal relativism to so easily reject the notion 'that the U.S. is somehow different, or better in any way, from the rest of the world'


Talking about the people of the U.S. and the U.S. as a socioeconmic national entity are not the same thing. The U.S. (as a corporate entity) is in fact better than the rest of the world in some specific ways. And also worse. But to qualitatively compare the people of one nation with those of another is meaningless and absurd: based upon what values or traits, judged by whom, and 'better' in what sense?

Bruenning, maybe I'm wrong -- it wouldn't be the first time -- but you seem to be sliding back and forth between these two senses of 'the U.S.,' conflating them at times to make your point.

thanks davey-boy, i was gonna make that very point.

now that you have, lemme make these points:

1. the thing that's especially irritating about this whole exchange (and this is TYPICAL of jonny-boy's style, to a T) is that he admits on the thread that he is purposefully being provocative. but whenever he actually succeeds in provoking someone into a debate, discussion, or argument, he inevitably acts so exasperated and 'sick of it' that he threatens to abandon the discussion altogether. you can't provoke a debate (in a very condescending way, no less) and then act put-out that others dare to challenge and not bow to the muddled logic you present as a stone tablet from mount sinai.

2. considering the unintelligible quality of message #13, i find it odd that bruenning has such a problem with my bullet points. i find it useful, on a site such as this, to clearly organize a response in a point-by-point manner.

3. out of context? i made it a point to use huge chunks of your text rather than simply tear off nice sounding bites -- and the entirety of your text is just above what i've written. i didn't take anything out of context. go ahead and prove me wrong.

America the Entity and the People of America are not the same thing. They're related, but not the same. America the Entity also incorporates its laws, customs, traditions, and governmental and economic structure. The People of America are just the people who happen to live in America at this time.

I don't think this is hairsplitting either. America is a system, a structure, and a strategy. Its people can inform and modify these aspects of America, but they aren't its equivalent.

But that is what we are talking about, David.

I was only responding to what I quoted from you in that comment. To 'support' your opinion that brian was contending that the American people might be better than other nations' people, you pulled a quote from him that wasn't addressing this. He impies that the U.S. (not the people of the U.S.) might be different or better in any way (or a specific way) from the rest of the world.

I'm genuinely puzzled that you think America and the People of America are equivalents. That's taking the lip service of democracy and populism too far, especially when you consider the fact that America has procedures and a constitution in place to protect it from its people's momentary impulses.

Jon wrote: "I could not disagree more."

Please elaborate. You believe that the people of America now are (totally comprise) what America is with no remainder or deficiency of definition?

I said they were strongly related but not equivalent.

I'm just amazed that you're asking these questions because they have no significant relationship or pose no contradiction to anything I'm saying.

Do you think you would have the same opinion of the role of government had you grown up in Pakistan?

Really? What does this have to do with what we're talking about here? I don't see the connection, but I'll go ahead and answer: No. I wouldn't have the same opinion if I grew up in Pakistan. How does that make America and its people indistinguishable? How does this make Pakistan and its people indistinguishable? What or whom are you arguing with?

Did that system sprout from the void?

No, systems don't spring from the void. But they are a PRODUCT of a given people. They are NOT the people themselves.

Jon wrote: "You're an American, David."

But I am not America. Don't you see the distinction?

This conversation is positively bizarre. I am beginning to suspect that Jon is being willfully argumentative and obtuse in order to stir up shit.

This discussion can and will go nowhere. This sentence...

You act like 'America' is some giant monster or separate entity that attacks other countries or tells you what breakfast cereal to eat.

...proves that much to me. Nowhere has anything of the kind been said or implied. It's as if you haven't even read or have deliberately obscured what I have been saying in all of these posts.

So yeah. Sayonara. This is strictly banging-head-on-the-wall territory.

wow, I got not one update of this even though I posted here before and you are all my friends. weird. let me digest and figure out who is being the primary asshole and then get back with you guys.

First important point: Vietnames cooking is my absolute favorite frigging thing here on this Earth at this current time. One point- Jon.

wow. what a fucking thread.

Simon, I blame you for this.

Not me, man. I'm just a simply country boy from the hills of Southern Illinois. Hell, we don't even like the rest of America, whatever America is. (Makes spitting sound, which is followed by the ting of a spittoon.)

Ha Ha! Shit yeah, I'd buy you a Budweiser if i was there...

Budweiser?? Go back ta Europe, ya rich ass communist! We drink goddamned Hamms 'n Natty Ice 'n Beast* 'round these parts.



















*(Milwaukee's Best)

gotdamn 'murica-hating librul bastards.

A one: "Don't mess around with God's America"

and two: "Eagles are bald/And so am I/If you're from Europe...you can suck my dick"

Stag Beer. That's the one.

Kissinger couldn't give my graduation speech because there were so many threats on his life..the goddam MF! Elder statesman, my ass!!
Great review, Erik. A+