Yes, and the crackpots always get the TV coverage. Always.

I don't know, are people actually doing that no-wine and "freedom fries" thing or just saying they will? I guess it's too early to quantify anything definite.

Dude. Thy're buying the wine and then pouring it out.

Dude. Thy're buying the wine and then pouring it out.

?????Really????

Oh, yeah, that'll show them.

The *House of Representatives* cafeteria now serves Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. Air Force One serves Freedom Toast.

This is not a joke.

An interesting take on the issue from an American living in France.

[link]

Oh. I thought it was all tongue-in-cheek. I must live with a very open-minded bunch of people, because half of us ordered French toast. OK, so somebody ordered "freedom toast" and we all just laughed, as did she.

Scrappy, the link's not working.

Should work now, Caroma.

People are smashing McDonald's up, pouring Coke down drains, withdrawing American brands from Parisian restuarants--and it's as common, and noticeable, as burning our flag.

I say this not to be inflammatory, but although clearly you have seen images of such things happening, I haven't. I don't doubt that they are happening, since you cite them. I'd certainly agree that burning flags, renaming potato products and smashing up (locally owned and run) fast food franchises are all ineffectual ways of expressing one's emotions and/or political views. And that vandalism, however viscerally satisfying it may be to the people involved, does nothing to forward one's argument.

But your post sounds, to me, disparaging and reductive. I'm sorry if that seems like an unfair assessment or an overreaction, and perhaps that isn't how you intended it to sound. I'm trying not to be offended.

McDonalds and Coke in particular have very specifically set about making money out of selling American-ness. If they are held up as a symbol of America it is because that is unambiguously how the companies have consciously expressed themselves. People in less wealthy countries see the wealth and glamour of everyday US life thanks to the fact that we now live in such weirdly information-rich societies that even Romanian peasants get satellite TV (along with their wood-burning stove, their scythe-cut grass and their milk squeezed fresh from the cow). For the most part they will never experience the luxuries that are taken for granted by many (most?) Americans. But they can identify themselves with the image of wealth and success that they are shown on the silver screen by buying a Coke, or some fries from McDonalds - these tangible pieces of America. The logos are almost talismans these days, and the chance to consume that which is consumed on the silver screen is terribly seductive. People don't drink Coke because it's such a yummy drink, either in the US or abroad; they drink Coke because of its symbolism. The introduction of a new recipe back in the 80s (was it the 80s? I think so?) had a terrible impact upon sales not because people disliked the taste - in surveys it was rated more highly than the old recipe - but because Coke represented more than a sweet brown mix of water and chemicals. It's a symbol of America. I don't think it's childish or adolescent to perceive it as such - it's what the brand's success is founded upon, both in the US and abroad. Especially abroad.

But I do think it's legitimate to have reservations about cultural colonisation in whatever form, and I don't think that it's a simple matter. One may envy and aspire to the material wealth and First World glamour of the American Dream depicted in movies and advertisments, and be a willing consumer of such pop cultural ephemera or brandnames as are within one's reach, and still have mixed feelings about the US.

Your average Mexican may well want to live the American Dream and still not think America's impact upon their own country has been entirely positive. Many countries feel that way. Many countries feel that way about Britain too, I dare say, and any more powerful country that has interacted with them. These relationships tend to be multifaceted, and rich countries exploit less rich countries in subtle and less subtle ways.

I mean, in recent years we've had plenty of instances of our produce being boycotted abroad - British sheep being burned by angry French farmers, beef being refused long after the BSE problems had been addressed, blah blah blah. So I'm trying to empathise with you, but I do feel a little like I've just been verbally slapped. Because yes, I consume US culture, I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I like many US movies, I drink your beverages, I buy your overpriced icecream. There are many American things (and people!) that I appreciate.

Nevertheless, I have reservations about the impact that the US, both insidiously and overtly, has upon my country. I am not at all happy about the war or our role in it. I sympathise with people who demonstrate to express their unhappiness about this war, and I can see that using something that is perceived as a cultural icon, be it a "French" fry or a can of coke, can be an effective form of shorthand to express one's feelings. You're quite right - neither individuals demonstrating nor governments negotiating will have any effect upon what the US does. It's got the most power in the world right now. It doesn't have to listen.

I'm intrigued to know what the "mature" response should be, though.