Wikileaks

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That certainly is reasonable. I don't say that I necessarily believe that the women's allegations are true, just that I convinced that they are serious allegations.

[nerdanel]

Yep, I'm with L_M on this. And at trial, the relevant facts for me - regardless of the specific elements of rape under Swedish law - will be the questions I highlighted above. Once we have reputable evidence on those points, I can make up my mind about Assange and his accusers both.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Once we have reputable evidence on those points, I can make up my mind about Assange and his accusers both.

No offense, nel, but that that ties right into the the "villainize the victim" attitude that I find so disturbing. It is no wonder that women are so reluctant to report sexual assaults when they know that doing so is going to inevitably lead to them being treated as the villains.

For myself, I have no interest in judging those women. The only question to me is whether Assange used force or guile to compel one or both of the woman to engage in non-consensual sex. And most of the points that you raise are only peripherally relevant to that question, in my opinion.

[nerdanel]

I'm rather disappointed by your response. I think you're reading things into my post(s) that simply are not there. For you to jump from my writing that I wished to "make up my mind" to saying that I am villainizing victims of sexual assault is a rather serious, troubling stretch, and I am in fact offended by your comments.

I'm not interested in "judging" the women, but I am interested in seeing evidence that will enable me to discern the details of what they are alleging happened. This is not an illegitimate desire, given the confusion and ambiguity swirling around this case.

Your comments are particularly perplexing in light of the fact that your posts themselves underscore the lack of clarity on what is going on here. For instance, you write:

There is no evidence that they met before separately reporting the incidents to the police.

However, I'll give you some evidence - an interview given by their very own (jointly held) attorney.

As the attorney explained:

But he gave a concise summary of the key allegations. "These two women were molested by Mr Julian Assange at two different times, independently of each other," he said. One of the two women, who met Assange at a lecture he gave in Stockholm in August, wanted to contact him after the alleged assault because she wanted him to take a test for sexually transmitted infections. She contacted the second woman, who had helped organise the lecture, to see if she could help her to find him. "When they spoke to each other they realised they had been through something very similar so they went to the police. That's not odd," he said.

"They decided to go to the police, to inform the police of what happened, to ask for advice; also they were interested in whether there was a risk that they could have got HIV. They were not sure whether they should make a police complaint, they wanted to have some advice. But when they told the police officer, she realised that what they were telling her was a crime and she reported that to the public prosecutor, who decided to arrest Assange."

In other words, directly contrary to your earlier claim, their attorney states that they went to the police only after meeting in person. Yet more proof that the facts are at this point completely opaque, and thus it is too soon for me to make up my mind about any part of the (unclear) allegations.

Also, the attorney explained this:

Two days later a second prosecutor, who conducted a preliminary investigation, came to a different conclusion, judging that the evidence did not meet the criterion of a rape or sexual molestation charge. "She made another judgment, saying: 'No it's not. It's very close, but not quite,'" he claimed. "So she cancelled the arrest order and he was still suspected of molestation without sexual motives.

So even when the allegations - whatever they may be - were put before a female prosecutor prior to the Wikileaks incident blowing up, her view was that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case as either rape or sexual molestation under Sweden's liberal laws. This again creates ambiguity with respect to how serious the allegations were - or WHAT the allegations were - as one presumes there is a higher-than-usual correlation between eyewitness/victim allegations and evidence in rape cases.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ah, okay. I stand corrected on the point of when they went to the police. But that doesn't really change my viewpoint (as would, for instance, evidence that the women knew each other before the incidents, and had conspired to trap him into incriminating conduct). I really don't mean to offend you, but I am still finding find it difficult to understand how you can say on the one hand that once you have the evidence you can make up your mind about Assange's "accusers", and on the other hand say that you have no interest in judging these women. It still sounds to me like that is exactly what you are doing, despite the fact that two of the three prosecutors that examined the evidence concluded that the allegations were sufficient to charge Assange with rape and/or sexual molestation.

But it really isn't worth arguing over this, so I am going to withdraw from this discussion, at least for now. I hope you are able to obtain the clarity that you seek.

[nerdanel]

I really don't mean to offend you, but I am still finding find it difficult to understand how you can say on the one hand that once you have the evidence you can make up your mind about Assange's "accusers", and on the other hand say that you have no interest in judging these women.

I would say the same with respect to the accusers (or if you prefer ... criminal complainants? Alleged victims?) for any alleged crime in which (1) the circumstances of the alleged crime are unclear; (2) the circumstances under which the crime was reported to the police themselves have some unclear elements; and (3) the circumstances under which the police decided to use international means to pursue the prosecution are downright fishy. #3, of course, is not within the complainants' control.

So, on the whole, it is not clear to me whether a crime occurred. You also concede that you are not sure whether a crime occurred, just that the allegations (to the extent you have been able to discern them) appear serious to you. I am less clear than you are about what the allegations are. After more information is available - likely in the form of sworn testimony at an eventual trial - I will be able to make up my mind what actually is likely to have occurred. I'm not sure it will be possible earlier in view of the ambiguities swirling around the news reporting. If this is victim villainizing - to withhold judgment in light of garbled news reporting and say that I'll make up my mind about the victims' stories once I can tell what those stories are - I'm not sure what I can say, other than that I would "villainize" any victim under such circumstances, whatever their gender or the crime being alleged.

[nerdanel]

To return to the original topic, of whether Wikileaks is comprised of saints or sinners, I wanted to share this Economist blog rant on American exceptionalism and hypocrisy. It also links a fairly good NYT article that I glanced at over the weekend.

The blogger begins by noting the remarks of a French reporter (Girard) that the leaks showcase the American diplomats' commitment to democracy and human rights, however naively sincere.

This is charming. Most Americans don't grasp the extent to which their country is considered throughout the world a bullying, opportunistic, imperialist power. Mr Girard sounds almost surprised by the "almost naïve" sincerity of American diplomats' commitment to democracy and human rights. And I think he is right that the intelligence, good humour, and benevolent intentions on display in the cables redounds to the benefit of the American foreign service's reputation.

I have to admit that the second sentence hit home for me. Before I left the States, I was not laboring under the delusion that the rest of the world was terribly enamored with us. But I think I had underestimated the strength and diversity of the negative feelings. I think it's safe to say that Americans are not universally up-to-speed on national and international news - I think the current events ignorance complaints re: Americans I've heard here in Europe are some of the fairest. So the most awkward part of listening to European/Commonwealth criticisms of the United States is (a) having to concede that most of the criticisms have at least some merit while (b) being aware that most Americans, including most Americans that I know, don't even have specific knowledge of many of our government's arrogant actions that so anger the rest of the world. And even as to many of the governmental actions that I think are defensible as an American - I know I wouldn't find those same actions defensible were I a national of any other country.

Sturdy conviction in the cause of democracy and human rights, the belief that America is exceptional in its embodiment of these values, and the confidence that American power is generally applied on the side of justice make an almost ideal ideological basis for assuming the role of freedom's global steward, of the kindly superindentant of the world's lesser powers.

This is how I was raised. These themes permeated the culture until law school - when words like "Abu Ghraib" and "Guantanamo Bay" and "warrantless wiretapping" and "extraordinary rendition" caused even us Americans to look at each other with shame. Those shameful episodes didn't reflect our country's proud promises of democracy and human rights, didn't honor either the ideals or the letter of the Constitution that many of us view as near-sacred. I think that many of us were educated pre-law school to view America's bad behavior as in the past - yes, we had our many shameful eras, from slavery to segregation to internment of the Japanese during WWII to marginalization of women to religious bigotry - but "that was then, this is now." Except not. I think we are living, in this "post-9/11 world," in one of the most shameful episodes in American history. It is made more shameful because, perhaps for the first time, America is managing to inflict a litany of harms and evils on disfavored countries and groups with an unprecedentedly minimal impact on the American population living at home. From outsourcing torture to Libya or conducting it neatly off-shore away from such pesky irritants as habeas corpus, to allowing military servicemembers in the comfort of offices in Nevada to take Afghan lives with the push of a button, our lives (with the admitted exception of those deployed overseas and their families) are relatively untouched by the problematic actions of our government, compared to previous periods in our history.

I think there is a very strong sense in the United States that we are on the side of the angels, that our commitment to liberal rights and freedoms is exceptional, that we are not only the "strongest" country in the world but somehow objectively the "greatest" or "best," and that it is right that we should earnestly spread our values and way of life to those who were not so fortunate to be born into such a greatest, best place to live. (I note that the United States isn't the first country to have adopted this approach. I type this message from the previous country that managed, for its own good long era of domination, to bring the same earnest level of chutzpah and arrogance to its world colonization. In my current way of life, I routinely bristle when I read dated British descriptions of their country during colonial times, invariably phrased in glowing, superlative terms - and then I inevitably freeze when I realize who sounds like that in the world today. "What arrogant, self-righteous bas - ohhhh, wait.") I think these attitudes underlie some of our most problematic foreign policy interventions, are partially used to justify a rather sweeping disregard for international law, and even help to explain our population's almost willful disregard for and ignorance of international news, most particularly including our country's behavior on the international scene. Viewing the United States from the outside is like being thrown into a "cold plunge" pool at the Japanese baths. However much you may accept within in the US that the country has its many regrettable moments, the country's actions look shockingly more ugly from the outside.

Anyway, the article continues:

I propose that this sort of exceptionalism helps explain the well-meaning earnestness of America's diplomats, the ubiquity of American surveillance and intervention, as well as the widespread American hostility toward WikiLeaks. Americans by and large trust their military, their foreign service, and even their spy agencies basically because all of them are full of Americans. If the good patriots keeping the world safe for democracy feel they need to keep certain things secret, then they need to keep certain things secret. To splash those secrets all over the internet is simply to interfere with America's attempt to carry its noble burden, to perform its urgent and necessary task, to make the world a little less safe for democracy. What kind of person would do that?

The more plausible that line of thought sounds to you, the more WikiLeaks will strike you as something akin to a terrorist enterprise. But the more you see a hegemonic America as a problem and not a solution, the more WikiLeaks will strike you as a welcome check on a dangerous, out-of-control hyperpower drunk on its own good intentions. In that case, it may seem that the American political establishment and the collaborating media has grown blind to the hypocrisy so clearly apparent to others in its approach to WikiLeaks because it has forgotten that freedom and democracy have meaning apart from their role in justifying the operations of the far-flung secret-shrouded state.

Polemical and distorted, yes. But there's more than a grain of truth in that last paragraph.

[Alatar]

Great post Nel, and I admire your willingness to cast your critical eye as readily on your own country and governement as on others, while still acknowledging the great good they have done.

I'm reminded of Mandy Patinkin's great line in Alien Nation:

"You humans are very curious to us. You invite us to live among you in an atmosphere of equality that we've never known before. You give us ownership of our own lives for the first time and you ask no more of us than you do of yourselves. I hope you understand how special your world is, how unique a people you humans are. Which is why it is all the more painful and confusing to us that so few of you seem capable of living up to the ideals you set for yourselves. "

[eborr]

Freedom is just a construct to allow the rich and powerful to keep doing the same as they have always done.

[JewelSong]

Freedom is just a construct to allow the rich and powerful to keep doing the same as they have always done.

According to Kris Kristofferson, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."

[Túrin Turambar]

The most exceptional thing about the United States with regard to other western democracies is its sheer size. In terms of population and GDP it isn’t all that far behind the entire European Union. It has almost two and a half times the population of Japan, the next likely comparison, and almost four times the population of Germany, the one after that. And against the other English-speaking former British colonies it’s a behemoth – even though Canada and Australia are of comparable area, it has ten times the population of the former and fifteen times that of the latter. Easily two-thirds of native English speakers are Americans.

As such, I often wonder how much of America’s character as a country is related to that fact. When I hear, say, someone from New Zealand or Ireland criticising the U.S., it’s interesting to speculate how a New Zealand or an Ireland of three hundred million people would act towards and be perceived by the rest of the world.

It’s obvious that America’s size and weight in not just global politics and economics but also global pop culture is the key reason why ordinary Americans don’t pay all that much attention to the rest of the world except insofar as it affects the U.S. After all, the U.S. makes a huge part of the world’s news as well as its entertainment. A Swede is far more likely to know who the President of the U.S. is than an American is likely to know who the Prime Minister of Sweden is simply because the President of the U.S. is such a major global player. The biggest downside to that, I think, is that comparisons with the outside world rarely enter into domestic American political debate. And when they do, I find they’re often dismissed on the basis that they don’t apply to America because it is ‘too big’ (sometimes true, but often irrelevant), ‘too diverse’ (patently untrue when the comparison is with a country like Switzerland or Canada) or otherwise simply ‘exceptional’ (which I believe is also usually untrue).

I think that you can make a good argument that certain other western countries, including candidates like Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, are better-run than the United States. In particular, that their citizens get better services in exchange for their tax dollars, and that they have fewer social problems and face fewer impending crises. But those countries together don’t even account for a third of America’s population, and it is, again, interesting to wonder how well their systems would work if they did have three hundred million citizens. On the other hand, the disinterest that many American commentators, even people here and on TORC, have in considering those comparisons can be frustrating sometimes.

The other big issue that America’s size creates is that American mistakes have huge consequences. I doubt that I’m saying anything shocking here if I said that the Bush Administration was not a successful government. But during the same time, Iceland had a government that ran the country into the ground. But with Iceland, most people a) didn’t know (at least until the GFC broke and b) even then didn’t care. The reasons are pretty obvious.

I am personally pro-American, and I am extremely happy that the world’s leading military and economic superpower is a western liberal democracy with a centuries-old democratic tradition. And I think that if America disappeared overnight and left the rest of us to try and deal with Russia and China as best we could then many anti-Americans would be singing a very different tune. But American exceptionalism can get very wearying sometimes.

[Holbytla]

This country has had and will continue to have lots of warts and unseemly characteristics. The size and diversity of this country make for logistical nightmares, and we are pulled at times in opposing directions because of the divided political atmosphere and philosophies.

The Cold War helped suck us into a certain mindset and actions that we haven't seem to break out of yet. We can debate until the cows come home whether good can be achieved by evil means, or if we can justify our actions because the alternatives are worse. Certainly we have to be held accountable for our actions as does any other country. The planet has a long history of civilizations and their conquers and dynasties. I don't know of very many of them that were totally benevolent, and most did what they thought was right for themselves before they thought of any others. We are far from perfect, but I do think we have a good system in place that is evolving for the better.

Espionage takes place in just about every country on the planet, by just about every country on the planet for a variety of reasons.

Whether or not Wikileaks is attempting to perform some noble task and whether or not it will have any effect is an issue, but so too is whether they are really morally superior and whether their means justify their ends. I don't see how their actions can be seen as anything other than espionage, nor why they should be treated any differently than any other spy. The US may need a watchdog, but going about it in a manner that will probably end up getting people killed isn't the right answer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I largely agree, Holby.

[Inanna]

nerdanel, the part that is just as surprising to me is that even Americans like you are so unaware of the image of the US from outside. I can't remember where I was reading the article - a WSJ opinion, maybe - in which the writer proudly said that "We will not sign international treaties" like the environment one...

And then, when I read L_M's posts, am struck forcefully by his whole "western nation" ideology. I guess I am just as stuck-up about India. After all, all I can think of when I read L_M's post about the size of American democracy is compare it to India and roll my eyes.

Anyhow, moving on, Wikileaks now has a competitor "Open Leaks" which will work "with the media".

[Túrin Turambar]

India is the world’s most populous democracy, but it isn’t a developed first-world country like the United States. It will become far more influential over time, but it isn’t yet. India, Brazil and Indonesia are all examples of very populous nations that are (more or less) democracies, but they aren’t international players in any way relative to their sizes. They are all occupied with the problems of development, poverty and internal stability, and will be for a while yet. There is a massive international debate on American foreign policy, but not on Indian or Brazilian foreign policy. Likewise, India and Indonesia don’t generally enter into the comparative lists of healthcare and education outcomes and the like that are done between OECD countries.

[Inanna]

I know, L_M, I get your context - and was using it to make it clear how I can be stuck-up on my home-nation as well. In this case, you had a valid "western" point.

[nerdanel]

nerdanel, the part that is just as surprising to me is that even Americans like you are so unaware of the image of the US from outside.

At the risk of speaking too much about my individual perspective, I'll respond. First, I'm not sure who "Americans like [me]" are - what is the demographic you're referring to? Young professionals? Attorneys? People who can't make up their mind between graduate school and the real world? Since I'm not sure which group you think should be more aware of the outside image of the US, I can only speak for myself.

The truth is that I was rather contentedly unaware of what was going on outside the US for a good long while. (By definition, this includes lack of awareness of foreigners' perspectives on the US.) I think this was for a few reasons. The first was, I suppose, laziness: I was simply not very good at picking up the general newspaper and just reading about what was going on in the world. Instead, I chose to focus on domestic social issues that I found interesting and ignore the rest. The second reason (and yes, I realize you've reminded us of the population of India, but I'm going to say it anyway) was size and perceived relevance of the United States. I think our federalist system exacerbates this: there is so much domestic news to follow that it's a full-time job just to "perceive" our own government internally, without worrying about how anyone external to our system perceives it. (And indeed, now that I follow international news much more closely, I don't have time to keep up with as much domestic news. I have no idea what's going on in California at the state level post-election, for instance.) I also notice that here in Europe, one of many motivations that my classmates give me for following the international news closely is this idea of "relevance" (their word) - British students in particular seem rather keenly aware that their international influence is less than it has been at times in the past and have openly expressed interest as to how they can continue to be most "relevant," whether through allying with the United States or engaging less "sceptically" with the EU, etc. I notice that many of the BRIC natives or citizens I've encountered, including my more-Indian-than-American father, are similarly anxious that their countries should be taken increasingly seriously on the international scene. This concern does not exist for Americans at this point in time, though it inevitably will some decades or a century into the future.

The next issue is practical: the United States is so massive that most of us of lower-to-middle-class means do most of our traveling within the United States. I did not have a passport until I was 21 (I've spent the time since I got my passport diligently making up for lost time. ) This means that many Americans' knowledge of most other countries is theoretical only. Theoretical countries are much less interesting, as are the theoretical countries' opinions of the US. I became much more interested in what was going on in the UK (for instance) after visiting four times and deciding to live here for a year. I became much more interested in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Canada, the Netherlands, and so on, after I had seen them and they had thus become real to me. (Note: I don't mean that you have to visit each country before you care about it or its views. But if you've never seen any countries other than your own, your entire reality is just your country and internal perceptions of it. I think this is a huge factor in Americans being as insular as they are.) In contrast, Europeans can visit many other countries in less time than it takes Californians and Texans to get out of their own states. As a result, their realities are broadened; they don't experience their countries as existing in vacuums; they are keenly aware both of their perceptions of other countries and other countries' perceptions of theirs. I perceive these Europeans to have an advantage in appreciating how their countries fit into the bigger international framework. I think it is tougher for Americans who haven't had the opportunity to explore much beyond the US.

Next, if you stay within the United States, the foreigners you encounter are almost uniformly those who have a positive view of the US. Immigrants, whether illegal or legal, have decided that whatever the flaws of the United States, they'd prefer to join us. Because I was raised by immigrants, I heard even more of this "greatest, strongest country in the world" rhetoric (to use Stewart's and Colbert's phrasing). Every time I rant about the United States to my Indian-born mother, she tells me with vaguely proselyte-like certainty, "You can criticize the US all you like, but there's no greater country anywhere with fewer flaws." Even visitors on tourist visas usually are those who find the US tolerable enough to wish to visit ... and even if they are deeply skeptical of the US, usually aren't going to start airing their unfavorable views to random Americans they meet in passing. So they are also not a source of information regarding the rest of the world's feelings of frustration towards the United States.

And even if you know, in theory, of the rest of the world's frustrations, it's different to read a news article saying, "The rest of the world is frustrated with the United States" than to experience a constant litany of complaints against the United States in real time. The latter drives the point home differently.

I can't remember where I was reading the article - a WSJ opinion, maybe - in which the writer proudly said that "We will not sign international treaties" like the environment one...

This is a separate point. As a country, we really do like to determine our own laws internally with minimal input from other countries. I'm so schooled in this way of thinking that it is difficult for me to shake. On one hand, I would like to see the US more proactively participating in certain well-intentioned treaties and covenants. On the other hand, I do like the idea that our laws are homegrown and reflect our best judgment rather than some vague "international consensus" that other countries have decided we should follow. But my view on this point literally shifts every week, since it's an issue that I'm wrestling with in my current course. So if you think this view is objectionable, rest assured that I'll probably have changed my mind by year's end.

[yovargas]

Man, I love reading this board.

[Holbytla]

I still fail to grasp how the perception of the US or its perception of the world, or even the actions of the US justifies what WikiLeaks is doing. This is going to seem like a huge stretch to some, but isn't this really in some way akin to trying to justify the actions of terrorists that are pissed off at this country?

Transparency has its benefits to be sure, but there are also instances where transparency is detrimental to the common good and public safety. I believe Mr Assange and his group is ultimately causing more harm than good. Does anyone suppose this will curtail any activity? I suspect that the means and methods of communicating will change drastically, and not for the better, but the activities will continue on.

We as a country and world power have a certain amount of hubris that is unbecoming and our actions in many instances disenfranchise the international community. I can understand that. How pleased would I be if some other government were patrolling my streets in the name of righteousness? Not at all.

There is no way to please all of the people all of the time, and beyond that there will be casualties of our policy making or lack thereof. Still and all we are not the USSR, Nazi Germany, Hussein's version of Iraq or any other dictatorial power. While our presence in some countries may achieve nearly the same lack of endearment, our aims are not nearly as malicious.

We give more aid to countries than any other on the planet as we should. We strive to instill systems of government that give the people some measure of voice. Does that absolve us of all of our sins? No. Are we cocky and arrogant at times? Yes. But no matter who is at the top of the food chain, they are going to be subjected to the utmost scrutiny and criticism, and they too will have their downside.

Our original goal in Afghanistan had some merit and may still have merit, but we will fail there ultimately. There is just no way to erase thousands of years of history and entrenched beliefs or to in any good faith help form a central government where tribes still rule the day. We reacted to an atrocity that was 9-11, for better or for worse, and this is the road we chose to take.

This is just one instance where we will anger the world and not accomplish what we set out to do. The focus will be on the atrocities and the lack of results and the world will cast more stones upon us rather than see that we were trying to protect ourselves and others by rooting out terrorist organizations. Who by the way, are pissed at us for allying with Israel and affirming an Israeli state more than anything else.

Everyone has a better ideal and everyone has a better method for interacting with the world at large. We are far from perfect and we need to continue to evolve, but we are out there everyday. We spend the lives of children in the name of freedom and fairness, and not in control and ideological superiority. We suck at it some of the time, but we strive and are active trying to help people the best we know how. And we aren't alone. We have partners who share the same aspirations, and the list of international forces is fairly extensive.

Are we partially in it for our own gains? Sure. Do we cross the line at times? We do. We are human after all, and we have at least our share of bad seeds. Should there be a better method of checks and balances? Yes, but I believe this WikiLeaks endeavor is far from the answer. Or any other entity comprised of people that receive stolen property, and publish lists of names thereby endangering them, all for the perceived sake of watching over a country who in their opinion doesn't align itself with doctrines of the ideals of WikiLeaks.

I am curious about what Mr. Assange is trying to accomplish here, and wonder where his true motivations lie. Is he trying to control the beast that is America who is seen as out of control, or is he in it for his own benefit? I notice that part of his inner sanctum has left him for "philosophical" reasons. Could it be that Mr Assange is in fact a dirt bag in it for his own glory or is he the purported path of righteousness? I suspect the former given his actions to this point.

And by the way, who are the Americans that are seen from the outside as villainous? Is it the America that is comprised of the entrepreneur from India? The migrant worker from Mexico? The Dr. from China? The miller from England? The truck driver from Russia? Or are we talking about the politicians and policy makers who theoretically at least are representatives of the people who ultimately have some control over our destiny?

Using the word American with the intent of trying to pigeonhole a country is akin to using the term fish to try and encapsulate everything that swims in the ocean. It doesn't begin to wash or to tell the tale of a very diverse and bifurcated country.

[Inanna]

Nel, I did not mean to put you on the defensive at all, and make you feel that you have to explain yourself. Obviously, I did do that, and my apologies for it.

However, that was a great post and made me think a lot as well, so it deserves a long, thoughtful response, not just an apology. And I will strive it to make this post thoughtful, and length, I suspect will simply be there.

What do I mean by people like you? Good Question. I meant someone who is educated and is a product of our current times where it is so easy to simply read, for example, a UK newspaper. However, I realized later that I specifically meant you as well. Why? Because you are not only just educated, you are also smart, aware and caring (about issues). You are a person about whom I have often said to R: "You remember those four women I met in CA? And one of them was this short, young Indian? (Yes) You know what cool/great/insipiring thing she is doing right now?" Somebody who offers to do pro-bono work for an issue to force herself to expore it further/recognize it etc. is not somebody who is living in her own sweet world, unaware. I also realized that your being an Indian immigrant led me to expect that you would be aware of US's perception in, for example, India (which is definitely not all positive). And I forgot about the India of before, the generation gap between your parents and my aunt and immigrants like me. All presumptions, and as it turns out, all wrong. Which is very good for me.

Your post also made me look very strongly on my perceptions of US and other countries, how they changed, and the perceptions of folks around me, in India, about US. I got my passport at the age of 21 as well. I'd never stepped outside my country before that either. Before that my perceptions were likely mixed, rather typical of someone from my background (Army, educated). US's alliance with Pakistan always troubled us, especially as the terrorist attacks in India grew and grew clearly from ISI trained caps and we got no international support. When I went to Germany (my first out-of-India trip where I was working with German colleagues), I remember being shocked by some things said about the US - nothing insulting or bad languge, but just the attitude. The same in France. Then, of course, we started working with Americans and there was a different attitude. The whole climate change debate - how suddenly India was the problem. We went, hellloooo? Yaddy-yada. And then there was the Iraq war.

Of course, since US is a superpower, when Clinton visited, the entire country stood on attention. When Obama's first state dinner is for India's PM, only CNN covers it. So there are these clear differences between an established country and a country yapping for recognition. So we know the Clintons, and we know about this Mayor from a little village in Rajasthan who asked Clinton - "is it true that Americans think India is still a place of snake charmers" (or something like that). India is proud of this guy (although I don't know what is the poor snake charmer's fault to be branded in this manner).

But really,on average (and we can argue about "average" here), what are Indians' perceptions about the US? And what are their sources? Hollywood and novels set in NYC and LA where everyone in the novel gets divorced 4 times. "Parents in US don't care about their children" - am so sick of arguing against that its a wonder I still have a tongue. Another one - "Nobody in US cares about religion" - oh yes, am sick of arguing against that as well. And a gazillion others.

One argument I simply don't buy is the "size" and "US has so much internal news" argument. Every country does . Newspapers will fill their pages with whatever their audience wants to read to sell them. And as for "who is US" argument? I agree,Holby, but that argument stands for every other nation, ever state as well, every label as well. And, really, I don't think any country is different - most people don't know a lot about how their countries' foreign policies are well. But as the point has been made before me, their foreign policies aren't that influential in the world - so their lack of knowledge about it is not scrutinised. The way I scrutinised nerdanel's - sorry, again.