Hi cenwolfgirl,

I genuinely and sincerely appreciate your explanation.  However, I actually didn't mean my post in a serious way, which is why I placed the (winking) character at the end.  Many times around here people will do that, to try to convey that they are joking around.  But again, thanks for trying to help.   

Alright, I'll look into it.  I don't live in the area and this was a couple of years ago, so he might not be there anymore.  But I'll check into it.

At the time I just didn't think of that, it was my first time going through that process with a vet and I didn't know exactly how it was supposed to work.  I just knew that it was very upsetting and I wanted to leave asap, though again, not until after I was sure that she was gone. 

The Process doesn't.  Something is very, very wrong there.  Either the person is untrained in that area or doesn't want to do.  (I don't really want to think of the third option - that they might actually want to inflect pain.)

I don't know where the truth lies, but the vet has been in business there for over 10 years, so even if he started out untrained I have to believe that he had the opportunity to become so over such a long period of time. 

Well this thread seemed as good a spot as any to post for my very first time on the boards. I must say I've been ever so slightly intimidated by the brainitude and smartiness of everyone here, which is why I've lurked for so long. That being said, I learned long ago that what type of sheepskin hangs on your wall isn't necessarily a good measurement of the size of one's brainpan.

Welcome! 

And I completely agree.  School measures the ability to do certain things.  People who can perform well at them can be quite unintelligent in many ways.  And people who struggle in school can be extremely intelligent in ways that the educational establishment has zero interest in. 

I'm not willing to work on a basis that denies the existence of quality altogether.

Imo, "quality" is one of those terms like "attractive".  It often means different things to different people.  Sometimes dramatically so.  I think that it exists, but it can take a lot of effort for two people to understand each other well enough to employ it in a useful way. 

I think the argument would be that the failure of those messages to get through is part of the problem.

I'm not sure that I could safely say that based on the author's text.  But if the author, or anyone else, were to make that claim then I would certainly agree. 

And I think that it's a problem that goes both ways.  If the only U.S. culture that is reaching you is THE BIG HIT SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER then it's definitely a "part of the problem".  But the problem isn't that that is all that the U.S. culture is creating.  It's a problem that that's what is being most effectively sold and marketed by U.S. corporations and then is being bought by other nations' media buyers and being consumed in sufficient quantities to perpetuate the cycle. 

For example, I'm more familiar with U.S. television then I am with movies.  I know that the CSI brands sell, and then rate, quite well in a number of different markets.  When shows like those are some of the bigger successes, then it helps to keep them being made in the U.S. and seems to show the media buyers in those markets that those are the sorts of properties that the buyers should continue to look for.  For a long time Baywatch was far more popular in many other countries than it was in the U.S. and so imo those non-U.S. consumers should certainly share some responsibility for that particular "contribution" to the world culture.  I'm absolutely not disputing that the U.S. content producers, sellers and some portion of the American people play a part in that which the author was complaining of.  But I do believe that there is more to the equation than they discussed.  In the same way, I can't believe that every Canadian should be responsible for Justin Bieber.   

Speaking as an American living in Los Angeles, I have to ask: People place that much importance on Hollywood movies?  Really?? 

In all seriousness, these are flimsy diversions meant as entertainment with a major emphasis on entertaining.  There is little effort made for accuracy, seriousness, or much else that the author appears to be looking for. 

I did appreciate most of this paragraph (though I still have issues with the end of it):

"And before you ask, yes, I know those are tropes, and I know that not *all* US books/movies/series follow them, just like not all French books feature, say, bumbling bosses or people going on strike–and that not all groups or minorities in the US agree with those tropes. I’m just commenting on something that, for good or evil, the US has managed to export abroad (thank you, Hollywood) and therefore is the perception of US storytelling from my window, and the window of a great deal many people in the world".

But I think that the author should have kept it much more in mind for the rest of the article than they did.  Some U.S. companies export, some of them prove successful, but it doesn't make those successes representative of anything more than monetary gains for the one, or few, companies doing each of those incidences of exporting.  Also, if ten, twenty or thirty million Americans watch a movie then that means that hundreds of millions of Americans don't.  And there's no guarantee that those who did watch whatever movie is in question enjoyed it, agreed with it, or took it at all seriously. 

Let's take a look at the argument from the reverse.  Many other countries manage to effectively export little culturally here, would the author really argue that American audiences should base their perceptions on those few messages that get through in our popular culture?  We hear that the Irish like green, potatoes and Leprechauns.  That Italians like or put up with leather, pasta and gangsters.  Should the US population really accept that that is all that there is to those countries and then judge their populations on it?  How would denizens of those nations appreciate posts like the following, based on the cultural messages that get through?  I would say they wouldn't, but that seems to be the argument that the author is applying to the US.  Here's an example,

"Dear Irish, it seems that you like the color green too much.  There are many other colors and your fixation on green strikes us as unhealthy.  Have you thought of giving others colors a chance"?

Sincerely, The Concerned Citizens of the U.S.A. 

The above just seems nonsensical. 

Further, it's hard to take seriously anyone who would make assumptions about US racism from movies.  The US is a big place and what goes on in one State, in some key ways, often has little bearing on another.  England and Italy are both European, but could observers rightfully claim that they are essentially synonymous and representative of each other?   

Ultimately, Hollywood movies are mostly trivial entertainments with little basis in reality.  For example, Los Angeles County and it's surrounding area, which contains Hollywood, has large concentrations of many ex-patriate groups, such as Armenians, Persians, Koreans, and Vietnamese.  How often do you see that mentioned in Hollywood movies, especially in movies dealing with "race"?  Those movies tend to focus on "blacks" and "whites" but don't even include the large numbers of "blacks" who moved in their lifetimes from Africa or the Caribbean, or "whites" who came from Australia, Canada, England, etc.  Much less the many, many, many groups from all over Central & South America, Europe, Asia, etc.  Obviously people have the right to view the US as they like, but imo the greater fault here lies with those who take these movies much more seriously than they deserve.     

Wizard of the White council

Your total Dresden Files purity rating is 25.1%

All scores:

Supernatural Power:39.5%
Social Skills:45.5%
Armed Combat:9.1%
Unarmed Combat:1.3%