As to conflating a people and their government, well, this is nominally a democracy. Doesn't mean people should be accosted in the streets, but I get where some of the world is coming from.

Americans, alone in the world, had the power to prevent this from coming to pass. Not necessarily the war - that could well have happened anyway. But the spectre of the U.S. running rampant over the world, unstoppable, deaf to other ears, is in large part a function of the current administration. And that's what has people so scared and angry. The animosity is no more in defense of Iraq than the war is to liberate it. Which is to say, related, but not the key issue.

Actually, do you know that Bush as President has no power about Kyoto? In this country, Congress ratifies treaties, not the Pres. Now, you could argue that if he really really wanted to, he could have lobbied for it, but frankly from what I understand it's a mess to begin with (exempting China?!) but not even Clinton bothered to try to push for it.

No, no, no, no. The *Senate* has the Constitutional power to advise and consent on treaties. Signing a treaty and delaying ratification-- sometimes for decades-- is SOP over here (the genocide convention waited forty years; it wasn't due to our intentions to commit genocide). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties obligates signatories not to violate the spirit of a treaty (to act to defeat the treaty) even if local legislatures haven't ratified. If the signer intends to violate the spirit of the treaty, it must announce its intention to do so. This is what the White House-- President Bush-- the Executive, and not the Legislative-- did. This is a big deal. It didn't have a goddamn thing to do with ratification but everything to do with a Republican White House playing politics.

Incidentally, because of this constitutional restriction there are far more "executive agreements" than treaties, which do not require Senate approval.

Quoting Hil from yesterday:

And against Sikhs, because it seems like a lot of people can't tell the difference.

So I'm sitting in LAX this morning, and there's a Sikh sitting a couple of rows away. I wonder, idly, how long the whole turban thing's likely to last in Sikh communities in the US, since I understand it's an important religious issue but on the other hand it's a clear marker of Otherness.

Sikh boards his plane.

Guy in the row across from me leans over in a sort of just-us-white-folks way, inclines his head to where the Sikh was, and says out of the blue, "you always wonder nowadays, don't you?"

Much as I would like to be able to say that I said, brightly, "No, not really," I didn't. I did say, somewhat puzzled - red-eye, you know - "about Sikhs?"

Him: Well, you can't really tell. I think some of them are Indian.

Me: Um, yeah, that guy was Indian. A Sikh.

Him: How can you tell?

Me: The turban. It's a particular style.

Him: Huh.

Me: (wishes she were better at quick comebacks)

So, anyway, ew.

Him: Well, you can't really tell. I think some of them are Indian.

!!!!!

t /speechless

"you always wonder nowadays, don't you?"

rolling eyes really hard.

ouch.

In the late 80s, early 90s when I was traveling a lot between the U.S. and Canada, all the security guys doing passenger and carryon xrays at Pearson (Toronto) were Sikhs. I usually fly into Montreal nowadays and drive if I'm going to Toronto, but I sadly suspect that that's not the case anymore.

The last time I went through Vancouver (2002) there were a lot of Sikhs doing security. My mother recently flew to Vegas, and said the security people on both sides were far more polite than usual. Of course, being of dusky hue, she was delayed and questioned far more than ever before, but at least they harassed her politely.

Everybody here still loves Europe and the Aussies. But they seem to making it very clear what they're against without saying what they're FOR. What will they do against Saddam?

Once again, can I remind you that Australia and the UK (ie a country in Europe) are allies of the US in this war and have sent troops to Iraq? Personally, I don't think they should be there, but given that they are, please don't say that as nations we're not "doing" anything.

I understand it's an important religious issue but on the other hand it's a clear marker of Otherness.

It's a completely non-negotiable religious issue; like being circumcized for a Jew. Male Sikhs do not cut their hair, which implies very long hair and thus a turban or headscarf. (Some of the Sikhs at work wear a tight scarf with a big lump on the top containing the ponytail. It looks weird to me, but hey, not my religion.)

If you support the Bush administration's global political stance, there is still the question of how they achieve it. The Bush administration has chosen an attitude of "We're the biggest country, we can do anything we choose, and anybody who disagrees will be punished." We've threatened the Canadians in public. We've insulted the French in public. We've threatened the safety of Mexican nationals in the U.S. All of these are official public statements by Bush administration officials, never taken back.

Part of being a grownup is being able to disagree without being disagreeable. A civilized government says "We are sorry that our distinguished allies fail to see the urgency of our position".

We can throw our weight around without simultaneously insulting the people we're ignoring.

Cheney has been totally out of the company since 2001.

Apparently not entirely accurate. A mate sent an ICQ msg about the Halliburton bullshit and said Cheney is, "still receiving deferred compensation from them". If true, he stands to gain a significant boost to that compensation.

brenda ... your brother must be experiencing the same emotions as the majority of Muslims and anyone who looks even remotely Middle Eastern. Sucks, huh?