why dave bergman is neat

i've been reading some british letters to the editor, mostly for a chuckle at the laughably inane assumption of a lot of these chaps that they actually know something about american politics and because they're just, well, so offended at the stupidity of us ol' yankees; i think their feelings might be hurt a little bit that a lot of us don't really care to prostrate ourselves before the fount of their wisdom or to kiss the rings of their superior understanding.

here's a gem:

Sir: I wasn't enthusiastic about Kerry initially, but warmed to him through the campaign, and hoped that the American people were similarly warming to him. I dared to hope that they would turn away from selfish overconsumption, neo-conservative manipulated paranoia, and the arrogance to think their government had the right to dictate politics to the world.

That they have re-elected Bush is deeply depressing. Goodbye world peace, goodbye Kyoto protocol, goodbye polar bears and most of Bangladesh! I wore black today.

and i especially liked the arrogance of the second paragraph of this one (from an american) (sent out especially for dennis and dave)

In my earliest letter of support for Senator Kerry, I expressed grief over the loss of worldwide respect and confidence that his leadership would begin to restore that loss. In this interconnected world, to adopt an attitude of "my way or the highway" is appallingly short-sighted, dangerous and more than a little embarrassing.

Don't give up on us - even if Bush is elected, we will not be silent. It may be the Sixties all over again, only with more PhDs and law degrees leading the opposition.

and i think this patronizing nanny might still be a little upset about the american revolution, no?

Sir: There is an element of Freudian slip to the American leadership's disparaging term "Old Europe".

America is an adolescent nation, as yet unable to see the follies of its imperialistic hubris. Mature nations have moved on, wisdom is only able to shake its head disapprovingly, for fear of violence, in the face of a teenager who has the power of a man but the mentality of a child. Britain is the exception among them, and is, like so many sullied academics, in the pocket of power; lending ersatz intellectual credibility and cod-morality to the excesses of youth.

Where Britain ought to be taking the part of the elder brother, it is instead, exploiting the American people, through their leadership. There's an uncomfortable parallel with the rueful adult, wistfully trying to relive their own youth (empire) through an impressionable dupe. Or does it amount to Fagin-like urging - "You gotta pick a pocket or two, boy."

and, finally, this one, telling us that ignoring climate change is worse than the president's decision to invade iraq and claiming that carbon dioxide is a weapon of mass destruction:

Sir: The election of George Bush as President of the US is a black day for the world. To have chosen him once was a misfortune. To do so twice was not merely carelessness, it was an act of hostility towards the rest of the planet.

It is bad enough to have a religious fundamentalist in charge of the world's only superpower, and one who is willing to invade another country on the flimsiest of pretexts, now shown to be false. What is arguably far worse is that, even though he has access to some of the best scientific advice available, he refuses even to acknowledge that climate change is becoming a serious problem.

Carbon dioxide is a far more potent weapon of mass destruction than anything that Saddam Hussein turned out not to have. And the US produces some 25 per cent of total emissions every year. Nothing meaningful can be done to even slow down the approach of catastrophe unless the US climbs on board. But I don't doubt that the US oil industry made heavy donations to the Bush campaign, so there seems no chance that Bush will change his stance.