|Every society has certain strengths and weaknesses. As for individuals
the aim should be to improve in the weaker ones. For example I like the
positive thinking and helpful posture of most US citizens. Now I make a
few remarks about things I don't like in the US society.
1. Tensions between "Moral" and Sexuality
For the US figuratively inherited this posture from the dominating British descendents, these remarks hold also true for Great Britain - with at most minor differences.
Never it was a good idea to deny the reality for any principal reasons. Such postures tend to collapse, when a certain "pressure of reality" rises to high. But before they break down, there are major problems and negative events associated with them. This was for example true in the middle age: the Catholic Church tried to suppress advances in Astronomy by denying the reality, reacted with brutal force and suffered ultimately by the unavoidable defeat against the reality.
Similar observations can be made in the USA nowadays, here I will point out a subject, which is associated with a great scandal in politics. The Clinton affair has already proven my point, so let us watch it from a more general viewpoint.
There is a man, who has severe problems to be faithful to his wife. And there are women, who ignore, that he is married. Most people of most countries will agree, that this is no positive behaviour. But this is no seldom phenomenon, so what is special about this? Only that the man is famous (his profession is total irrelevant in this respect). The first consequence was, that like most people he wanted not to be publicly blamed and therefore lied (this of course strongly supported by the abilities of his profession), to avoid this. The second consequence was, that rivals of his profession tried to use this private problems against him. Imagine you would try to take an advantage against a rival at your job by abusing informations about his private life! And the simple reason behind these events, which made them possible, is the conflict between official posture and real behaviour in sexual respects, a problem of the majority of US citizens. They claim to follow rules invented in the middle age or slightly later and in these days only defended by fossils like the pope. In reality, of course, they are also interested in sexuality as open minded peoples like the Frenchmen. This could be seen also in the Clinton affair: it was really ridiculous to watch the official cry of indignation and at the same time the in my view total insane interest in the publicly distributed statements of him.
The only results of this superfluous events are, that the respect for the President of the United States has considerably suffered, the US politics are in turbulence and sacrificed time for these, lacking it for much more important subjects and a general neglect of treatment between opposed politicians.
It's not good to be not honest. But the way, in which most US citizens behaved, is more than only not being honest: it carries some sort of schizophrenia with it. I think, this tension cannot be beared for an unlimited time...
Another person, who got trouble this way, is Pamela Lee, a Canadian citizen, but now living in the USA for ten years (since 1989). As most Scandinavians and Frenchmen and so the majority of the Canadians, she has no problems at all with sexuality. And her honest nature caused her to ignore the "political correctness" of the USA in this aspect totally.
There is the same schizophrenia observed in the posture against her: considered at least officially by the US society as person with low moral (which is in my view absolutely nonsense), it's absolutely evident, that most US citizens (mostly male, of course) are extremely interested in her way of violating their "political correctness". This insane posture has driven ultimately the sacrifice of all of her privacy by publication of her own video tapes, which was even legalized by an also simple-minded judge, evidently full of prejudice against her. And the widespread distribution of these tapes in the USA is again a fact, which proves my point. Because Pamela Lee fought all the way against it, and lost despite of the "moral integrity" of the United States!
There is a simple solution to all of this: the US citizens should turn
their posture in direction on Canada, France or Scandinavia, and all these
difficulties will vanish. There is in reality no choice, but the earlier
they begin, the better...
2. Abuse of Weapons without real Control
In the past reasons existed, which made it reasonable, to give weapons to every US citizen: the lack of general police presence, dangers by animals and so on. Since the days often presented in movies much has changed. But many - presumably the majority - people in the USA seem at least mentally to live ever in the "John Wayne" manner.
Obiously they can't comprehend, that in modern civilization such a posture causes great dangers without any real benefit. Today holds the opposite true: if there were no - or at least nearly no - weapons in the society, it would be far easier for police and justice to control criminals and limit crimes and there would be simply far less opportunities for abuse of weapons at all.
Three very bad examples are to be rembered here: childs (!) can it wide areas of the USA use weapons easily, educated often by the parents, which caused a tragedy in 1998 but no effective reaction onto it. The ease, with which many former US Presidents were killed, has also to do with it: no problem, to get weapons without being recognized in great parts of the USA. And the violence, with which gangs are fighting each other - and not only in the past the mob -, is also greatly enhanced by the lack of limitations in most parts of the US.
The solution is quite evident: massive restrictions or even a total ban of weapons for civilians are necessary, to bring these problems down. For example New York City succeeded not only by enforcements and attitude changes of it's police, but also by restricted weapon regulations in reducing the crimes largely.
Of Course the weapons industry tries to avoid progress in the field
along with weapon lovers, who deserve in my view rather a psychological
treatment than a license for ownership of such devices. The urge to posess
weapons signals in my view rather a weakness, than a strength.
3. Ignoring of Privacy
The USA claim total liberality. They interpret this far to often in very one-sided ways. This one is no exception: other than in Europe media in USA may virtually do anything to invade the privacy of every person, without being stopped or even punished anyway.
Not exclusively, but mainly famous people are affected by this nasty habit. One thing is for sure: being famous means automatically, that a certain sharing of privacy with the public is necassary, otherwise real fame can't be achieved. But this cannot mean, that the affected persons have absolutely no right to maintain a remainder of privacy. But this is exactly, what happens: in the United States you will never hear, that any of these invasions is stopped, limited or seriously punished. Now consider, that in certain cases people didn't know before, that they become or wanted to be famous. This is clearly the worst case, thrown into an existance without any place to hide.
But even if famous persond are sharing much of their privacy with the public by their own initiative - or better even more in this case -, they deserve the right to protect a rest of it against the media. The US judges, who ignore this, should try to imagine, that they themselves would be attacked this way. Eventually they will get better, fairer decisions after it. One very bad example I already mentioned above (section 1) is the distribution of an extremely personal video about Pamela Lees privacy.
comments, remarks, opinions to: firstname.lastname@example.org