You might be anti-American if your name is Fred.

IMO the above statement has about as much relevance as most of your top ten there: While being 100% true, the one has little to do with the other.

1. You think the average American is "stupid" or "a sheep" or "brain washed".

If I thought that, and also that the average Russian was a chess master and a goat (or other barnyard animal), perhaps. But how about equal opportunity feeling superior to others in the brains department? I'd say it makes me want to watch my head in narrow doorways, but doesn't convey much about my nationality bashing. Although perhaps it shows a very pessimistic view of the world population, and if being American means being optimistic (little_whip), that would make me un-American at least.

7. You hope that the United States "loses" in Iraq.

I felt sick to my stomach when I heard George W Bush interrupt my radio station to inform me that we'd been dropping bombs on Baghdad for the past few hours. I was shocked, if not awed. And I remember wondering what side I should take. I didn't want our boys to die, but neither did I want civilian casualties, and to be honest those Iraqi soldiers were just doing their job, and I wouldn't want to be the mailman handing their mothers the dread telegrams. So, at the time, did I want the US to lose in Iraq? No, I just didn't want them to win, either. The situation is even worse now, as leaving or staying will both cause more deaths. Anti-American or anti-war?

8. You would like to see China or Russia or the European Union act as a "counter balance" to the US militarily

I wouldn't mind it, certainly. Plus it does seem likely, the real question is when. I'll throw out the libertarian chant here: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Assuming that up until now the United States has been a benevolent sole Super Power, there is still a great threat if no checks and balances are in place. (And to go off on a tangent, why is it that Libertarians never say that when talking about Microsoft?)

2. You prefer law be made by appointed judges rather than elected officials.

I can't honestly say that I agree with that statement, but I fail to understand the anti-American sentiment behind those who do. I personally believe in a strict separation of the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government, but seeing as it is very American to have the head of the executive be able to veto the legislative and appoint the judicial, I'd say the separation is already lost. Perhaps I simply fail to see the obvious, but I'm stumped on this one. In what way does this signal for Senator McCarthy?

3. - 5. + 9. I'll try and sum up: The United States of America (generally reflecting on companies or political policies, with an optional president thrown in every now and then) is baaaad.

Let me answer that with some questions, I know how that tactic is loved and adored:
Is it anti-German to think Hitler was a war criminal, anti-Russian for Stalin, etc? Personally I find it harsh to condemn an entire nation for the acts of some. Be anti-Nazi, anti-Hitler, anti-getting a man elected Chancelor in a vote more hokey that Florida 2000, don't go nation bashing. We've had American Indian haters as president, may I be less than thrilled with them? We've had "not a crook"s, arms dealers who developed amnesia (or had it all along, as the case may be), etc. May I dislike their policies, their lack of honesty, the way they tainted our reputation, and perhaps even go so far as to dislike them? Sure, maybe I should forgive and forget, but I would think I reserve the right to not like certain people on account of their actions. I didn't like the kid who bullied me in school, and although I haven't seen him since I still don't like him. Perhaps I don't think of him as a war criminal, but even if I did I don't think that would make me anti-School. Anti-bullying, yes.

So, to wrap up the above paragraph: Dislike of a few, even those elected to lead the rest, does not make me dislike the group itself. I'm anti-Bush, anti-Kerry, anti-Nader and anti-Libertarian guy. I'd be anti-Socialist if they were running anybody, but he's running for Senator in New York as the Green party candidate, so I'm against him there. But I don't think that makes me anti-American, I think that makes me pro-wanting a president I can agree with more often that not. So I'll vote against the worst evil and hope for better luck next time. But if thinking that there are problems with America, and wanting to change those, is anti-American, then I guess we'd better get back to only male white landowners being allowed to decide the course of our country.

6. You think that the United States kind of "had it coming" on 9/11 because of years of its "foreign policy"

While I'd love to really go for the jugular, I can't think of any way to agree with that. But I'd say it doesn't constitute being anti-American, so much as being either pro-terrorist, or just plain being a jerk. (That word chosen out of sensitivity to the readers' eyes.) Now, the USS Cole bombing I saw as an act of war, which I disapprove of, but which seems to be unavoidable. So, am I back on the anti-American list?

10. You believe that US-style capitalism is a force for global ruin, individual degradation, or environmental catastrophe

Again, the faults of some don't necessarily bring down an entire nation. Capitalism and the US aren't joined at the hip, there is a chance (roughly the same as Lucifer building a snowman) that America turns Communist. Will anyone who didn't agree with the above be labeled an anti-American traitor and executed? Yeah, probably. So are we better than that? I should friggin' hope so.

--Nate

Let me just jump on my own statement and say that I kind of got carried away and failed to double check before posting, as I usually would. (Ah, the internet is a wonderful way to take back things you didn't want to say.)

You explicitly said none of the 10 reasons were policy related and I did bring policy into it in 3. - 5. + 9. My sincerest apologies. Now, to rationalize:

I do feel that it is somewhat hard to completely split policy from the policy-maker. Someone who supports racist policies, is a racist. I feel that way in any case. To make things clear: I am NOT accusing any politician of being racist, at least not right at the moment, simply citing an example to underscore my view.

I will however try to play by your rules and comment on 3. - 5. + 9. without the use of policies.

4. You think American culture is a grotesque cancer spreading across the world.
Not sure there really is such a thing as American culture. It's mostly a lot of melting pot cultures.

3. + 5. You think of the United States, as a whole, to be "the greatest threat to world peace/the environment".

I'm sure one could argue long and hard about who's "the greatest" (Actually, I believe it's the little boy in the baseball cap, courtesy of Kenny Rogers, the singer not the baseball player), but I do believe the US is a threat to both the environment and world peace. Some of the reasons for this are: the president, stockpiled nukes and failure to sign the Kyoto treaty. Now, if Ghandi were in charge, I think we'd be less of a threat to world peace. However, getting rid of nuclear weapons and signing Kyoto would be policy changes, and I promised to steer clear of those. I hope you realize the sacrifices I'm going through for you.

9. You consider Bush, Clinton, or any other US President a "War criminal"

As pointed out earlier, trying to wipe out an entire nation would be deemed a war crime today, however at the time there was no such thing as the Geneva convention or anything similar (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'd be hard pressed to make that case.
I do believe that thinking Bush is a war criminal certainly isn't completely without merit. Torturing POWs is a war crime, and *IF* an order could be traced back to Bush that would certainly saddle him with equal responsability for committing said war crime. Now, that's a big "if", granted, but it's not a totally out of the blue remark.

BTW, I realize you said "might," I realize you said "symptoms," but when all is said and done you're still trying to make a point and I'm still disagreeing with you.

I must be anti-American becasue I definetly think that Americans as a whole are largely ignorant of the state of affairs around them. Ask an average American about who you're going go vote for, the issues that matter the most, the geo-political state of the country, and if you're lucky you might get, I'm going to vote for Kerry because I hate bush, or I'm going to vote for Bush because he's president.

I must be anti-American becasue I definetly think that Americans as a whole are largely ignorant of the state of affairs around them. Ask an average American about who you're going go vote for, the issues that matter the most, the geo-political state of the country, and if you're lucky you might get, I'm going to vote for Kerry because I hate bush, or I'm going to vote for Bush because he's president

Ask anyone in the post-industrial world this and you'll get the same sort of response. It's not limited to the US in any way.

little_whip: I think that was Matt Stone's point about apathetic voters and his request to just stay home. Mallard Fillmore (Political Comic) made a sundit point stating why should these apathetic people vote and cancel out my vote? So very true what you said, like the Political Machine it's awareness that gets someone to vote in first place.

Cactoblasta: Agreed I was making an example of how I felt of Americans at large but it can be applied in so many places around the world.

Helix exactly, you and little_whip hit it, call it awareness, media blitz, campaign dollars at work, everything ties into the convient sound bytes and bits. Instead of actually debating the issues they spent their time wisely debunking the other candiate. Ugh what a mess we're in. Either canidarte wins American loses.

I note however that your list also simply exaggerates and distorts what the left have said about the US etc. so that they sound anti-american.Sometimes I wonder what's the point in debating: neither side seems to be bothered listening to each other, they just look to score points. But then, scoring points is so much fun isn't it!

I don't think I've exagerated anything. I have seen people say that the average American is a "stupid sheep". I have seen people say that "you Americans deserved 9/11 and more!" There are plenty of people who hope the US loses in Iraq (Something like 30% of the French in a recent poll for instance).

There are plenty of people who hope the US loses in Iraq (Something like 30% of the French in a recent poll for instance

Well, yes, but it's hardly a surprise that foreigners are anti-American, particularly the French. The French don't think the Americans are grateful enough for French help in the War of Independence and the Americans don't think the French are grateful enough for American help in WWII. That it's only 30% is a big surprise for me. I always thought the antagonism went deeper than that.

Sure, Americans call their fellow citizens sheep. But many of them seem to be fattening themselves up instead of fattening up livestock; maybe many Americans don't quite understand their role in the foodchain.

Excellent!

How would you rate giving comfort to the enemy in time of war?

Excellent!

How would you rate giving comfort to the enemy in time of war?

Criticizing the President's policies is certainly not Un-American. However, the unrelenting personal criticism of President Bush over the past year; telling the world that Bush and the entire government he assembled is evil, out for personal gain, etc., is wrong.

We are still winning the war. The terriorists quote Ted Kennedy and John Kerry almost every day. They and their cohorts have chosen politics over support for the war effort. Their changed opinions clearly show their lack of respect for the truth.

Imagine if the Democrats had stood with the war effort a year ago. If terrorists had heard Kerry, kennedy, et al. saying that we are coming after you. I believe the war would be won by now and less lives would have been lost in Iraq.

Yeah, you believe that because you have absolutely no understanding of why the terrorists do what they do. They couldn't care less about who's in the White House.

You would like to see China or Russia or the European Union act as a "counter balance" to the US militarily

THere's nothing anti American about having equilibrium among powers, unless your construing "...balance" as counter attack.

how about just being a person first?

There aretwo different issues that ate being conflated in the Blog by Draginol. First, American civil society, its culture, its values and of course, pop culture are not red rags to anyone. One may have an opinion on any of these issues and a negative opinion does not make anyone anti american.

Now, USA and its military, its Pentagon, ots CIA, its corporations and vested interests are an entirely different issue. I do not think that if the American media reports the War in Iraq half fairly, you will find anyone supporting that war.

Finally, if American Presidents are above international law is that not incentive to sighhn the International Protocol on the Court ofCriminal Justice.

Where do I begin? To start, how does the "far left" make anything sound "UnAmerican"? Next off, I qualify under 9 of those qualifications, so I must be bin Laden. Wait, no, I live in the heartland! Your article is BS and you need to watch the news, or learn, or get out from under your rock. If you agree with me, look at my blog, cause there's more.

I have to say that the premise of your article is un-american. If someone says yes to any of your questions you say that those opinions are anti-american. It is their right to disagree with you, the government or whoever. First Amendment.
It was John Ashcroft who made comments about "remaining silent" and I don't think he's on the far left.
Here is the exact quote from his Congressional testimony:
We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

And it's pretty easy to guess when he's referring to "those who scare peace-loving people with the phantoms of lost liberty" he was reffering to those who opposed the Patriot Act.

shut the fuck up moron.

steevlane, not sure which moron you mean (maybe me?), but a real compelling argument you make there.

The terriorists quote Ted Kennedy and John Kerry almost every day

if you were to add up every instance of a person quoting john kerry in the past year, bush would top the list.  and that was just the soundbites.

 

wow...some people just too lost...first while we as americans have a right to speak out in this country regarding any ill's we may perceive (real or imagined)....its in the way its brought out into the public arena where the left has gotten its rightful blame....disagreeing with a administration over policy, domestic or foreign is fine...equating the same administraition akin to fascists is not...believing the president is wrong in his policy decisions is okay...calling him and idiot, drunk, cokehead, or my personal fav...hitler is not...just like we have a right in this country to peacefully assemble for a redress of our grievences....borderline riots are not...the key word which the left has forgoten or ignored is "PEACEFULLY"....how can i say that..simple I've attended more than a dozen protest marches by the left endorsed and organised by such wonderfull groups as United for Peace and Justice (they equate ROTC as fascist indoctrination), MoveOn.org (they advance the theory that Bush is akin to Hitler), Workers World Party (they prefer to trash the free-market ecconomy system for their collective ecconomy) and they were anything but peaceful....wonder if it was the fact that there were peole at these "events" who disagreed with their ideas and protested them peacefully..funny how they got violent....and we didnt..go figure...as with everything there is a limit to our freedoms which we are thankful for..otherwise we have chaos .

wow...some people just too lost...first while we as americans have a right to speak out in this country regarding any ill's we may perceive (real or imagined)....its in the way its brought out into the public arena where the left has gotten its rightful blame....disagreeing with a administration over policy, domestic or foreign is fine...equating the same administraition akin to fascists is not...believing the president is wrong in his policy decisions is okay...calling him and idiot, drunk, cokehead, or my personal fav...hitler is not...just like we have a right in this country to peacefully assemble for a redress of our grievences....borderline riots are not...the key word which the left has forgoten or ignored is "PEACEFULLY"....how can i say that..simple I've attended more than a dozen protest marches by the left endorsed and organised by such wonderfull groups as United for Peace and Justice (they equate ROTC as fascist indoctrination), MoveOn.org (they advance the theory that Bush is akin to Hitler), Workers World Party (they prefer to trash the free-market ecconomy system for their collective ecconomy) and they were anything but peaceful....wonder if it was the fact that there were peole at these "events" who disagreed with their ideas and protested them peacefully..funny how they got violent....and we didnt..go figure...as with everything there is a limit to our freedoms which we are thankful for..otherwise we have chaos .

Drag....I agree whole-heartedly...with everything...our very freedoms do have limits....otherwise we have chaos....

Over in this discussion one prominent left-of center blogger from here on JU wrote:

http://therightdish.joeuser.com/ArticleComments.asp?AID=71666

Chavez is the new Castro. The difference is that he has oil leverage. It makes me laugh. I hope he fucks the US with a big rubber dick.

And that blogger isn't even as far left as many of the bloggers on this site.  But rarely have I seen the point I was trying to make as crystalized as it was by his comment. He HOPES for bad things to happen to the United States.

You would be pretty hard pressed to find right of center Americans HOPING for bad things to happen to the US.

good article brad sorry I did not see this sooner.

About cactoblasta comment that america DESERVED 9-11.. HOW DARE YOU! Maybe one nice day a sweet kind little raghead will set a nuke off in your country, then I can say well they had it comming, frack em.