Moving out of the USA

This one is for Desslock -

It's interesting how, when we are brought up in the United States, that we grow to think of the rest of the world as somehow the "third world". We say to ourselves in our smug little American way, but HERE we have "Freedom" -

Well, I currently live in Italy - the land where nothing works, and I have just as much freedom as I ever had in the US. And politically I see a hell of a lot more freedom, a much more vibrant and active democracy then I have ever experienced in the United States.

For example, there are some 30 different political parties, as opposed to the 2 in the US - both of whom represent, to a large extent, large corporate America. We have communists, leftests, socialists, social democrats (facsists) - and every political stripe in between. Not much gets done, but EVERYONE gets a voice in the democracy.

In Tuscany, where I live, school children are fed all organic food for school lunch - something Big Corp in the US has fought successfully in each school district it has tried. Huge corporations do not have a huge lobbying voice here, and unlike the US, they do not write all the laws!

My neighbors, on a whim, cannot run a credit report on me. I have a right to privacy. Credit card companies and banks are NOT allowed to charge usurous interest rates - and my landlord cannot throw me out of my home because he can get more money or because I am a few days late.

If I take a job here, I can't be fired just because (actually, this turns out to be a bit of a downside for Italy in many cases), I have health insurance, I get regular long vacations. I am not expected to place my professional life before my family.

At the start up of the War, over a million folks marched on Rome, and protests were wide and regular throughout Italy. The news media here actually covers the war - and we have the right to see the bodies on TV. The media itself is hugely diverse, and as a result Italians are far better informed about what goes on in the world than any US citizen. The media doesn't lose access to parliment because it is critical of Berlusconi - The media outlets he doesn't own are hugely critical of him, all the time.

I feel like our freedom in the US is illusory. We have the right to free speech - sure - but no one hears us. And, as you can see, it's limited. We have the right to a free press, but what's the diff if the press is all owned by GE and Westinghouse? We have the right to get representation from our congressmen and senators - but frankly, big business is footing the bill.

Essentially, what we have the "right" to do in the US is to work long hours for whatever pay we can get for mostly whatever conditions our employer sets for us, in the hope that if we are really lucky, someday we too will be part of the ruling class.

I am NOT saying everything is peachy keen here in Italy. It is full of stupid laws, socialism has myriad downsides, the beurocracy is a holy nightmare, it is really hard to get rich here too - but the freedoms we take for granted in the United States are, in reality, more protected and more real here then they ever were at home.

Best,

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

...

---

Well I'm not of the impression things can be so easily attributed to the nature of Islam vs. that of prevailing cultural forces in the west. I believe that, more often than not, lurking below the surface of near any problem that appears religious in nature yields roots that are in fact political or socioeconomic.

And I think this is the case when it comes to what could be labeled as the conflict between the West and Islam.

If we go through the history of the clash of these two civilizations (broadly identifying "the West" as a single entity for sake of this argument) we can see various occasions on which either side was able to rightfully lay claim to the moral highground. Islam hasn't always been identified with radicalism and intolerance. When Christian Europe was adrift in the dark ages, the Muslim world was experiencing a golden age of science, mathematics, art and enlightenment. In Spain there existed the Spanish (Catholic) Inquisition that is the epitome of religious extremism and intolerance and was characterized by violence and brutality. The Crusades have been glorified in theory, but looking further in to them, it's not hard to see anything less than glory in how they were practiced.

Even in the US today, our complaints about the religious right and overbearing conservativism threatening our civil liberties are the result of a conflict between a segment of society most of us identify with and the opposing side guided by, at some point, religious motivations (that we often see as originating from and carried to the extreme).

At some point in history, a multitude of factors played out to create a situation in which Islamic extremism would clash with Western culture. Those factors included colonialism, a growing rift between the prosperity of the west and stagnancy near everywhere else, the cold war between capitalism and communism, the creation of Israel (indirectly, we should remember, an outcome of some quite heinous developments in the midst of Western Europe i.e. the holocaust), global economic interdependence, and the list goes on and on. My guess would be that if the Middle East was the center of Hinduism or Buddhism or Judaism (say, if there was a Palestine surrounded by hostile Jewish neighbors and populated by a kind of reverse-diaspora), and history played out the same way yet with different players, so to speak, we'd be battling terrorism from those elements instead. Islam was not so much the driving force behind this militant extremism as it was a common denominator with which it could identify itself and whose banner it could unite behind. A political movement that could appeal to religious beliefs for recruits and support. So the religious nature of it was actually an effect more than cause.

Western Europe has a long history of falling back upon racially driven ideology when sensing threats attributed to outside influences. We see that in Nazi fascism, the ability of considerably right wing political parties to do quite well in many national elections and appeal to that sensitivity among the public (even very recently), European anti-Semitism, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the like. It's a recurring theme throughout European history.

I don't think marginalized immigrant communities can be handed all the blame for their marginalization, and I don't think that Muslims living in the United States can be accurately characterized as unwilling to integrate, not having proven themselves adept at integration, and incompatible with US culture and society as it exists. In fact I'd say that in the United States we've seen the exact opposite - Muslim Americans fully integrated in to American culture and society, fully American to every apparent respect, living happily here in this country, proudly residents and citizens, and contributing fully to their communities as Americans who happen to be Muslim. (So we have to ask, why has this not been the case in Western Europe?) Nor do I think we need an "Assimilate, or else!" kind approach to immigration with respect to Muslims in America any more than we needed with (but which generated a great deal of prejudice and intolerance towards) Irish or Italian Americans who faced a great deal of hostility when coming to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I think the motivation to assimilate in to American society when an immigrant comes from the inherent benefits of doing so, rather than some mandated need to. And altering that equation can only cause problems and would only be extremely un-American. One could take a superficial glance at crime statistics in just about any urban area in the American Southwest and come away saying Hispanic Catholicism is entirely incompatible with US society and a threat to the American way of life. But that'd be a rather distorted conclusion to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaun

This one is for Desslock -
It's interesting how, when we are brought up in the United States, that we grow to think of the rest of the world as somehow the "third world". We say to ourselves in our smug little American way, but HERE we have "Freedom"

---

Well I would hope people would not get such a condesending impression of other countries. That is why I took German all through high school, and then minored in it in college.

Plus, I would suggest that there are people everywhere who feel like most other places (except where the happen to live of course) are the "Third World." For example, many people in Dallas think the earth is a flat object with themselves in the center, and the rest of mankind revolves around them. I've never really understood this kind of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaun

Well, I currently live in Italy - the land where nothing works, and I have just as much freedom as I ever had in the US. Credit card companies and banks are NOT allowed to charge usurous interest rates - and my landlord cannot throw me out of my home because he can get more money or because I am a few days late.

---

Well like I said --- I'm only saying that other countries are different. I'm not saying Italy sucks, or the US rules. I just think complaining about the US is ultimately baloney, especially if you fail to recognize what is right in front of you.

By the way, it is funny you specifically mention your freedom relating to banks and credit cards. This message thread cites how the United States is the best country where you can find credit card processing and banks that handle adult business.

This is precisely because our banking system is far less regulated then countries like Canada or Italy. Those regulations which "protect you" from high interest rates consequently cause banks to not enter into risky business areas... of which ours is a big one. This is also why countries end up with a handful of banks that make up the entire industry. There are just fewer opportunies for smaller banks in that kind of atmosphere. And since there is less competition, they don't need to touch something like Adult Business.

And you Europeans may have more insight to this - but that is why there is not as much credit cards useage in the countries over there. I think in Belgium the maximum credit card limit a bank can issue is $750. Once again, whether or not you have a moral stand about credit cards.... the business we participate in relies heavily on credit cards as a method of payment. This is also probably a factor in why the United States is such a large market for our adult website business.

This is also why Europe has developed payment methods via cell phones more handily then in the US... it is out of necessity, and necessity is the mother of invention.

Steve

Well - as to banks in Italy - um what - we have 3 banks left in the US? No, there are literally hundreds of banks here. Modern Banking was born in florence, as a matter of fact, with the Medici being the bankers for the vatican. More banks here than churches, I think.

It isn't a matter of competition - this one comes down to the downsides of socialism. Italians (and Europeans in geneeral) don't "compete" the way we do in America.

Honestly, the attitude is - so what if you don't like our bank. We don't care. We're just collecting a paycheck anyway. Take your business somewhere else... less work for us... more work for them.

Same with every other business here. Lots of competiton, but the fact is, the people who work here couldnt care less if you shop with them, or with someone else. They're busy on their cellphones. They have a vacation to plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterMark

I don't know all of the details, but the 2 attorneys I've worked with have said that the European Union now guarantees more privacy rights than the U.S.

---

To some extent that is true however, i wouldnt say that effects everyone with an overall blanket statement.

Personal privacy in the EU has been a big issue in the last couple of years and, certainly there have been some good laws / regulatory additions to protect an individuals privacy, especially their online privacy however, paraphrasing what someone else mentioned earlier in this thread (Brian i beleive) you take the good with the bad.

At the moment the EU is still in its infancy, as such, there is still a lot of in fighting between countries and, when the EU passes a law, it becomes legal EVERYWHERE in the EU, whether your previous law was more favorable than not.

There have also been some really stupid laws passed by the EU for example, did you know that in the EU you cant sell something as simple as a banana in a grocery store if it shorter than 5 inches in length? LOL

Whilst privacy is definately a good thing for anyone to have, moving somewhere for better privacy laws just isnt enough for me, i would rather go somewhere where their all round laws were more 'balanced' in addition to making sure the country / town etc i lived in was economically stable. There are still many countries in the EU that arent and, to visit them you'd think you had ended up in the third world.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

-

---

We have differing views regarding the radical Islamic movement and the Islamic culture in general. The politics of a people is not the core from which they function, rather a sword used to enforce their moral beliefs, not vice versa. You cannot have a group of people united under politics without them first having a common vision ( moral beliefs ).

Islamic immigrants to western societies are a type of modern day colonization that mimics what Christians started long ago, and continue to this day. It's their form of pay back and trying to force their beliefs on our society as Christians have for hundreds of years throughout the world.

Marginalized immigrant communities can only be created when an immigrant chooses to live in that community, forcing themselves to be separated from mainstream western society.

Your correlation in regards to Irish Italian immigration to American society in the 19/20th century and modern day immigration of Muslims in Western culture isn't valid as Italians weren't terrorizing Americans because of a war in, or near, their homeland. There was no fear of Americans dying from Irish or Italians immigrating to America, there is with the Muslims, because of a fundamental difference in moral values.

To say that Muslims who hang homosexuals in public, cut off the hands of thieves, have multiple wives, perform female circumcision and sew the vagina shut to ensure virginity ( Pharaonic is their term for it ), etc. etc., are going to "fit well" in American society, and if they don't it's possibly our fault, borders on insanity. The above examples are the MAINSTREAM Muslim beliefs, not the radicals.

There's a fine line in a society of accepting people who are different, and protecting the good of society as a whole. All of us have our differing beliefs, that's part of a free society, but unless you want the radical beliefs of the middle east forced on you then you have to draw the line somewhere. If you think Bush and his administration are bad just imagine being Muslim!

When speaking in terms of religion you have to make generalizations based on the majority. Just like Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc. there are varying degrees of loyalty to the religion, thus not all members of the religion are the same, but for the sake of discussion just the basics of a typical follower are represented in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

We have differing views regarding the radical Islamic movement and the Islamic culture in general. The politics of a people is not the core from which they function, rather a sword used to enforce their moral beliefs, not vice versa. You cannot have a group of people united under politics without them first having a common vision ( moral beliefs ).

---

Well we definitely disagree with you there.
And I'm not talking about the core from which people, in general, function. I'm talking about the core from which militant extremists function. There's a massive distinction between the two. To suggest otherwise would suggest that Northern Ireland is representative of Catholics and Protestants in general, that US slavery and the KKK were representative of Protestantisms flaws, that militant Jewish organizations (the Jewish Defense League, it should be pointed out, consistently in the decades leading up to and even in to the 1980s accounted for more acts of domestic terrorism in the United States than any other group).

I think also you're working from the false assumption terrorism didn't exist before Sept. 11th, 2001 or whatever acts of terrorism there were before that, committed by Islamic extremist groups, only targeted the West.

Secular regimes in the Middle East and Arab world have been targets of terrorism long before these terrorists attentions were turned towards the West. And the experiences of countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (yes, even Saudi Arabia), Bahrain, Algeria and Morocco - where Muslim (in faith, tho secular) governments have been under assault by groups that want the power for themselves and seek to usurp authority, among others make glaringly obvious the political motivations behind even self-professed religious extremist groups. The end-goals are political. The initial, motivating spark is political. The power sought is political. Religious extremism is a tool to achieve political ends. Not the other way around.

A casual, unaware observer would see the Muslim Brotherhood's attacks against tourists in Egypt throughout the 1990s and in to the current decade as attacks on foreigners, mainly Westerners, who were coming in to Egypt and wearing unIslamic clothing, drinking alcohol, violating tennants of Islam, and corrupting the Islamic morals of society. But in actuality, the truth behind why they target Western tourists in Egypt is because tourism is a vital, central part of Egypt's economy. To destabilize the tourism industry is to destabilize the economy, which in turn is to destabilize the secular regime and open the door to the accomplishment of the militants' political goals. Political.

Likewise in Algeria, when a democratic election delivered significant victories to Islamic political parties. The secular regime threw out the election results, and a wave of violence followed in that country under the apparent guise of a religious extremist movement. But when you consider that the religious conservatives won the election and only resorted to violence when an authoritarian, secular regime ignored the will of the people, the political nature of that uprising is plainly apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Islamic immigrants to western societies are a type of modern day colonization that mimics what Christians started long ago, and continue to this day. It's their form of pay back and trying to force their beliefs on our society as Christians have for hundreds of years throughout the world.

---

Sounds a bit too much like some elaborate and lofty conspiracy theory. What you seem unable to appreciate is that so many of the Muslims that come to the United States do so because they want to get away from oppression and religious conservativism. Not bring it here. I think the assumption you make is pure xenophobism.

Further, to suggest that Muslim immigrants moving to the west are the modern day equivalent of Christian crusaders or colonists assuming "the white man's burden" and spreading their beliefs throughout the world is a flawed comparison. With Christianity, its spread across the globe on behalf of any deliberate effort was genuinely official and highly organized and supported by governments. Which is to say that conquistadores in the service of Spain conquered the Americas, merchants in the service of England colonized India, and so on. Agents of King, Queen, and/or Pope. With respect to immigration, you just don't see that. You don't see President Fox mobilizing a crusade of immigrants in to California and Texas for sake of his glory, and you don't see Muslim immigrants colozing the Americas for sake of the House of Saud. There's a reason there is a term for immigrants and a term for colonists. Because they are two very different things.

I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that a Muslim immigrant coming to the United States or Western Europe is far more likely motivated by a pursuit of greater academic freedom, economic prosperity, freedom from political persecution, and other such reasons that have been at the root of immigration for decades. The very fact that Muslims move to the West to enjoy greater freedoms and continue to practice Islam peacefully in the West is further proof that its all about politics and not religion (the political manifestations of religious extremists in their homeland made living there as moderate practitioners of the religion incompatible with safety and security).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Marginalized immigrant communities can only be created when an immigrant chooses to live in that community, forcing themselves to be separated from mainstream western society.

---

I don't believe this to be true. Immigrant populations have always had a period of integration that can often last a generation and you only need look as far as the Little Italy's and Chinatowns and Little Armenias and Little Tokyos and all those other examples to see this. Integration in to society as a whole can still be achieved in concert with immigrant predominance in certain neighborhoods. There's a vast difference between it taking people some time to integrate and their being relegated to the ghetto by the prevailing forces and prejudices of the society in which they now find themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Your correlation in regards to Irish Italian immigration to American society in the 19/20th century and modern day immigration of Muslims in Western culture isn't valid as Italians weren't terrorizing Americans because of a war in, or near, their homeland. There was no fear of Americans dying from Irish or Italians immigrating to America, there is with the Muslims, because of a fundamental difference in moral values.

---

Ah but it is true, because it's all about perception. In decades past, Irish immigrants were considered a threat to the American way of life. Just as you consider Muslim Americans to be today. And faced intolerance as a result. As did Italian immigrants. As have Hispanic immigrants. As have Japanese Americans. It's the native population perceiving threats that are more often than not, if not exclusively, the source of any notion of threat. Not the immigrants actually posing such a threat. Japanese Americans didn't pose a threat to us during World War 2, but we perceived them to be doing so. And so we through them in to internment camps in one of this nation's history's darkest events. I don't remember any immigrants flying planes in to buildings on September 11th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

To say that Muslims who hang homosexuals in public, cut off the hands of thieves, have multiple wives, perform female circumcision and sew the vagina shut to ensure virginity ( Pharaonic is their term for it ), etc. etc., are going to "fit well" in American society, and if they don't it's possibly our fault, borders on insanity. The above examples are the MAINSTREAM Muslim beliefs, not the radicals.

---

What's insane to me is the suggestion that any and all Muslims either commit or condone the things you mentioned above or attempt to justify bigoted statements with the idea that your motivations are benevolent and progressive. "We must fear all evil Muslims to save the children."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

There's a fine line in a society of accepting people who are different, and protecting the good of society as a whole. All of us have our differing beliefs, that's part of a free society, but unless you want the radical beliefs of the middle east forced on you then you have to draw the line somewhere

---

Actually thanks for bringing up another point. The mischaracterization of Muslims and Middle Easterners as being one in the same. I think this generalization and your inability to distinguish makes clear where many of your comments and beliefs come from. Fact of the matter is that the majority of Muslims don't live in the Middle East. The most populous Muslim nation is not an Arab nation. A majority of the world's Muslims are not Arab or Middle Eastern, and so on. You'd like to paint them all with this same brush, ignoring the fact that there's so much more to the Muslim world than what you care to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

When speaking in terms of religion you have to make generalizations based on the majority. Just like Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc. there are varying degrees of loyalty to the religion, thus not all members of the religion are the same, but for the sake of discussion just the basics of a typical follower are represented in this discussion.

---

I don't think anyone ever has to make generalization. And further, I think your erroneous generalization that the majority of Muslims are violent extremists is precisely why what you're saying is so flawed. In my opinion.

Well the convos are always stimulating. Nice to cover some non-porn stuff on the boards every once in awhile. Keep them synapses firing :D

But I gotta get goin. got a plane to FL to catch in 7 hours. Later all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

--

---

Let's just call it a day regarding this topic. You've read a lot into what I've said and labeling me bigotted is way off base.

Goto http://answering-islam.org.uk and read the answers from Muslims themselves. More of my Middle Eastern knowledge comes from my Iranian friends I grew up with which taught me Farcie ( most of which I've forgotten :high: ) and also my Muslim professor in college. She was one of the most inspirational women I've met in my life. She is the one who initially opened my eyes to the ways the mainstream Muslim religion oppresses women and partakes in Pharaonic ( cutting the clitoris and vaginal lips off ) In her case her clitoris and vaginal lips were cut off, and her vagina was sewn shut except for a whole the size of her pinky finger. You see a virgin is required at marriage and this is the only way they can guarantee the woman is a virgin. Some muslims don't sew the vagina shut, but the woman is examined before marriage to make sure she is a virgin. Some women go to underground doctors to create a fake hymen, if they've lost their virginity, to ensure a good marriage and out of fear of an honor killing if the husband feels dishonored at marrying a non virgin.

I'm not coming from an ignorant, or bigoted place. Remember I'm an ex pat living overseas, not to mention a Gay pornographer. You seem to be lumping me into this preconceived notion of the close minded American stereotype, of which I am not.

I'm speaking from first hand knowledge, from my own personal experience, and the experience of my close friends and a mentor, who are all part of the Muslim community.

"And further, I think your erroneous generalization that the majority of Muslims are violent extremists is precisely why what you're saying is so flawed."

I never said that, I said "To say that Muslims who hang homosexuals in public, cut off the hands of thieves, have multiple wives, perform female circumcision and sew the vagina shut to ensure virginity ( Pharaonic is their term for it ), etc. etc., are going to "fit well" in American society, and if they don't it's possibly our fault, borders on insanity. "

Those are not the extremist ways.. they are the mainstream muslim beliefs. Again goto http://answering-islam.org.uk and get answers from them yourself.

If the middle east was full of peace loving Muslims then their society would reflect that, and it doesn't, it hasn't for hundreds, no thousands, of years. Learn Middle Eastern history from the people themselves at http://www.mideastweb.org/history.htm

We're both good people.. let's just let this one go and move on. It's all good. Just saw your message on leaving to Florida.. have a good time! Will be nice to meet you in person some day where we can understand each other better face to face :high:

I came back cuz I was gonna make a post askin what the differences are between "strike anywhere matches" and "safety matches" because the FAA says I can't take the former on the plane with me but I can take the latter. Then I found out the lil ones in the booklets like you'd get at a bar are "safety matches" because they can't be struck anywhere.

But as long as I'm here, I think you and me get in a lotta heated arguments lol. Usually though about pretty intense subjects. Which makes sense, really. Cover stuff like that and firm statements come across. I dig ya tho and don't at all disrespect ya. Still gettin' the hang of typing stuff in discussion forums without the advantage of inflection and tone like we'd have face to face in vocal discussion hehe.

Anyways, definitely be cool if you made it to a show up here soon! Or you Oz fellas threw one together down there!! 8) ok, armed with my 4 books of safety matches, I'm off!

if this keeps up i'm going to have to get a dictionary! , "xenophobism?" , "pharaonic?" :goof:

sincerely ~ ..."your bandwidth is set too high , adjust for all users!"...

p.s ~ and i thought i was complicated! :)