Iceland Devaluation Has Silver Lining for Visiting Americans

[Doctor Cynic]

Source: MarketWatch

If there's one silver lining in Iceland's troubled economy it's this: American visitors to Iceland can enjoy the best exchange rate in recent memory. For a time in 2007, one dollar netted just 58 Icelandic krona (ISK). As of early this month, one dollar grew to equal 105 krona. More krona -- nearly twice the spending power of a year ago -- equals lower prices.

More good news for Americans: Icelandair just slashed fares to Iceland's capital, Reykjavik, from New York or Boston to $400 roundtrip, about what a one-way fare once cost. This fare is good for travel November 1 through March 31, 2009.

As an add-on in November only, Icelandair is offering a 3-night "Winter Madness" package at the Hilton Reykjavik Nordica, with daily breakfast, for only $149 per person double occupancy. This top-rated hotel typically goes for over $200 per night. The Hilton offers guests the very best in upscale room facilities and amenities, and the very best in contemporary Icelandic and international cuisine at the hotel's highly regarded gourmet VOX Restaurant, Bistro and Bar.

Devaluation is also great news for visitors to Laugavegur and BankastrAti, the main shopping streets of Reykjavik with numerous shops selling designer clothes. Hungry? A hot dog in downtown Reykjavik, at about 210 ISK, is now about $2, versus $3.50 last year. Want to take a tour of the countryside? A one-day trip with Reykjavik Excursions to SnAfellsjAkull glacier, featured in Jules Verne's "The Journey to the Centre of the Earth," is a real bargain now. The 11,500 ISK cost is only about $109, versus almost $200 a year ago.

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/iceland-devaluation-has-silver-lining/story.aspx?guid={A4AB5B33-3721-4235-983C-85496E02DC0B}&dist=hppr

[Coventina]

1. They won't get a dime from me as long as they're still whaling.

:mad:

on edit: and that polar bear that they shot - I'll never forgive that heinous act.

[Arctic Dave]

3. So if you are pissed at them for whaling, are you also pissed off

at Native Alaskans for doing the same thing?

[Coventina]

5. Indigenous people paddling canoes & throwing harpoons to take

one whale or two a year I am perfectly fine with as long as the whale population can support it and the whale is actually used by the community.

I'm talking about Iceland's support of the whaling INDUSTRY. An entirely different animal (so to speak).

[Arctic Dave]

8. OK. I just wanted to know yuor take on it.

Although the paddling a canoe and harpoon is a little of base. But they do eat it from the nose to the toes. So to speak.

[ExPatLeftist]

34. To put it in perspective...

There is no whaling "industry" as such here. What is killed is used. In the hunt a couple years back, under 20 individual whales were killed for scientific research. Still, the meat is used so it does not go to waste. The meat is still available in stores and restaurants. It is not as if we are running processing factories or something here. The scale of anything done in Iceland is minuscule compared to the US - not odd considering that the population of the entire nation is about the same as Spokane, WA. :)

[Coventina]

46. I've always wondered. Just what is this "scientific research"?

What new things are learned by killing these whales?

That's the part I really don't get.

[ExPatLeftist]

51. Mainly their health and eating patterns are studied n/t

[livelongandprosper]

4. I don't care about whales. I care about people. And Iceland has

the most civilized people on this planet. Even more so than Denmark Norway Sweden or Finland.
Virtually no crime no intolerance no political shit. Clean air clean streets. And it's just one beatiful country.

[Coventina]

6. Not caring about whales & other forms of life is what has caused

the incredible destruction our species has brought on this planet.

ALL forms of life have to be cherished & cared for. That's what being liberal and progressive is about.

I won't argue that Iceland is a beautiful country, though. Never been there myself but I've seen pictures.

[ExPatLeftist]

15. I agree that ALL forms of life should be cherished - why some more than others, though? n/t

[Coventina]

25. Compassion is not a zero-sum game. n/t

[ExPatLeftist]

29. It is also a personal matter.

Global law based on the opinion of some that some creatures are sacred cows makes no sense to me. I do not see India boycotting other nations because they choose to eat beef... Especially illogical is the fact that people sit in one of the worst polluter nations on the planet and scold other nations because, while those nations are much greener, the people in those nations should choose to view all animal life in the same "hierarchy" as the polluter nation, or they are "hurting the planet".

[Coventina]

48. Whaling nations have the reputation that they do because

it is something that could very easily be given up for the benefit of the endangered whale species. Yes, some populations have recovered, but how much and how stable those populations are is debated among scientists. Not whaling is something that requires relatively little sacrifice for a very large, very obvious good.

[ExPatLeftist]

52. It is easy to tell other peoples that their sacrifices are minimal. BTW They are NOT endangered.

These animals are not endangered - contrary to a common argument, the Minke whale is far from endangered. And Icelanders have benn keen conservationists for centuries, do not overhunt and seek a true balance in nature with man as a part of the food chain with regard to all species. This is where Icelanders have a problem with this - it is not necessarily a good thing to remove man from the picture completely on some species and not for others. The current situation shows that the impact to fisheries populations is very detrimental - which is not an obvious good at all.

I understand that many people are against hunting whales anyway. That is fine - then those nations should make it illegal. But I do not understand the arbitrary selection of a certain type of animal as "off limits", and I have never heard a reason given for why whales should be spared over any other animal. The only thing that I have heard is that it is due to intelligence, but I do not hear this same argument very often with regard to pigs, which are extremely intelligent and slaughtered by the millions in the USA and most other nations...

This is an arbitrary selection of an animal to preserve based not on whether the animal is endangered, but on subjective analysis on that animal's value. That's great, all cultures do that. The problem I have is when some cultures try to push that subjective value onto other cultures - and even more so, to act as if those other people are horrible barbarians for not believing just as "we" do. That problem is exacerbated IMO when the people trying to force their views also simultaneously reside in a nation that kills far more whales (and all other animals) than those at whom they point their finger.

[Coventina]

55. Well, it seems that even Icelanders don't want whale meat:

Iceland ends whaling due to lack of demand

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/24/eawhale124.xml

Iceland has stopped commercial whaling after whalers discovered they cannot find domestic markets for the meat they have caught.

Iceland's fisheries minister Einar K. Guofinnsson said that it made no sense to issue new quotas if the market for whale meat was not strong enough.

He said in an interview with Reuters that he would not issue a new quota until the market conditions for whale meat improved and permission to export whale products to Japan – which Iceland has been seeking – was secured.

"The whaling industry, like any other industry, has to obey the market. If there is no profitability there is no foundation for resuming with the killing of whales.”

******************************

So I guess that ends our little argument.....

[ExPatLeftist]

56. Why would that end the argument?

I am arguing about the right of sovereign nations and other cultures to make their own decisions. This is IMO a fundamental problem with many in the US today - to try to tell other nations how to live, based on subjective criteria, and expecting other nations just to whip in shape. We see this constantly from the right in the area of foreign policy and, unfortunately, see it from the American left as well. People living in a nation that fucks the Earth up like no other sure have balls to tell other people how to live.

Iceland will likely end whaling because it is not viable internally, as you point out. Excellent - my argument is that we should be able to decide for ourselves - not that we should be whaling. Pulling out for economic reasons is much different than being bullied into stopping because some people have a special affection for a specific creature as opposed to others.

[Coventina]

57. My point was that there's no use arguing over non-existent whaling.

But apparently you want to argue over the right of a sovereign nation to do whatever it wants.

That's not an arguement I'm interested in having, because that logic can justify all kinds of horrific practices that are currently practiced in the name of "culture".

So, I'm out at this point. Good luck!

[ExPatLeftist]

61. Good luck to you as well :)

Of course I do not think that nations should be able to do anything they want, completely the opposite. IT just seems quite arbitrary to select a non-endangered species over others, and Icelanders have a very hard time understanding this, and like many others are tired of being lectured to by people in the US - whose own government has perpetrated countless horrors.

On top of that, of course things are very tough here right now (as most places, but I think quite exaggerated here at least for now - it's nuts here), and aside from the economy, now the Brit gov't is taking potshots at us, and to get the standard whaling animosity on top of that is, IMO, a bit of a kick while we are down, but I admit that it makes me more sensitive as well, and wish you no ill will.

All the best. :)

[kestrel91316]

9. We Democrats have a tendency to care about life forms other than

humans, ina ddition to humans, and respect their rights. Particularly intelligent sentient life like whales.

You might not be comfortable here.

[nebenaube]

21. no

just a big trap for anyone leaving Amsterdam...

[rcrush]

22. Is weed legal there?

Or decriminalized? Those rates sound great and I wonder if they have those cafes like in Holland.

[ExPatLeftist]

23. Unfortunately not. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

40. Frankly, I only care about my immediate family.

I don't know why any other form of life, human or non, should concern me. :shrug:

[Cronopio]

49. Right on. They are a very cool group of people who deserve our support.

I disagree with the whaling, but there are quite a few Icelanders that do too. I won't be financially supporting the whalers when I visit.

As Obama said, we can have disagreements with civilized people.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Absolutely.

They are also quite proud of their genetic purity. Guess that leaves Obama out of their secret handshake club. :eyes:

[Icelander]

18. Thats not correct.

In fact id pretty much guarantee that 99.9 % of the population would vote for Obama! No doubt.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Vote for Obama, perhaps.

But would 99% of them embrace someone dark skinned and of African descent marry their daughters and sons? I doubt that
would be greeted with the same enthusiasm.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[ExPatLeftist]

31. PLEASE BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH SOMETHING.

Yes, I know some people here that are like that - would not want their daughter to marry a black man. But you know what, I know a helluva lot more people that would not care. Even more crazy, I know a lot of people in the US that would fall under each category as well.

Just as the US, we are a nation of individuals of many different viewpoints.

You are making tons of generalizations about another people and nation, and have nothing to back them up. Oversimplification is for the simple, IMO.

[ClarkUSA]

63. I wasn't speaking to you. And I hate to tell you, but you just proved my point.

Furthermore, you're an abusive individual whose logic skill set is deficient in the extreme.

[ExPatLeftist]

65. Ah, going ad hominem I see. Speaking of logic....

Also, "I wasn't speaking to you"... This is a public message board, not your e-mail.

Bye.

[ClarkUSA]

67. No, I am amused at your extremely emotional reactions to reasoned criticism.

Nice to see you go.

[ExPatLeftist]

71. Well, maybe I am emotional about the place that I live going through hell the last week or so.

And people like to get their kicks in while folks are down. Iceland != whaling. It comes up, first post, almost every time Iceland is mentioned.

Emotional, in these times, yes. So sue me. It is what we Americans do best. ;)

[ClarkUSA]

74. That's the first thing you've said that makes sense.

I know Iceland is in huge financial trouble. Hope you're still able to withdraw monies (I know people who can't).

And don't take the "Iceland = whaling" thingy so personally. I feel the same way about Japan and Norway. ;)

[ExPatLeftist]

76. There are big differences in Norwegian, Japanese and Icelandic whaling.

Anyway, good night.

[ClarkUSA]

78. The similarity between them is that they're all wrong to kill such magnificent, sentient animals...

In the name of "tradition". :puke:

[ExPatLeftist]

79. You speak of logic but base this argument on an emotional attachment.

Simple question: How do we define and quantify "magnificent" and "sentient"? How do we define which creatures may be hunted according to this criteria?

These are subjective terms, so is the world supposed to just stop hunting any creature anyone else deems as magnificent and/or sentient? I think pigs are pretty magnificent and definitely sentient. When do we stop killing them?

The point is, the entire argument is not based on logic at all, but an emotional attachment to a specific animal.

[ClarkUSA]

80. I do not eat pork for the reasons you name, tho' they are not a protected/endangered species.

Pigs, as you know, number in the hundreds of millions. Unlike the whales that are hunted now by Iceland, Norway, and Japan.
The reasons given for hunting whales are specious at best and callously indifferent at worst.

And I thought you wished me goodnight?? :shrug:

[ExPatLeftist]

81. Minke whales are not endangered. So what are the criteria? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

82. They are protected under the MMPA.

That's the criteria.

[ExPatLeftist]

83. Ah, so they should be protected because they are protected?

Circular logic. We were discussing the justification for the whaling ban, and you justify the ban by naming the act outlining the ban.

That is similar to arguing that the Iraq War is justified because of the IWR. No, that is the document outlining the ban - not the reason for it.

I have asked the same question I posed to you about what makes whales different and deserving of special protection, despite not being endangered. I have yet to hear a response that is not purely based on emotional, purely subjective and vague assertions that could easily be pointed out for other creatures as well - beauty, intelligence, sentience.

The truth is that there is no logic behind it. The whale is simply a sacred cow for some - which is fine, we all have our sacred cows. But our own personal emotional connection to our animals of choice do not somehow make our own species preferences a logical universal truth - just another personal belief that we try to shove down the throats of the world.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Your "truth" is parroted Iceland/Japan/Norway's subjective and specious talking points

Tradition. That's all you guys have. Spare me your patronizing condenscension because I find your arguments laughably
self-righteous.

Whales are not livestock animals. Their numbers have been decimated 99% from what they used to be while past whaling
apologists like you and your ilk were enjoying your whale meat and their numbers will continue to remain low while you
and your present ilk are defending international marine conservation pariahs like Iceland/Japan/Norway.

Your rhetoric is not only simplistic but scientifically flawed. Comparing pigs to whales is another ridiculous example
of your apples to oranges thinking. By the way, African countries defend eating bushmeat (aka. protected/endangered
primates) under your self-same logic (and they also defend their "traditions," too). Happy? You stand in excreble company.

I, for one, am glad Great Britain froze Iceland's assets and hope the international courts will fine Iceland for its criminal
actions in not releasing the assets of its depositors. I grow tired of your pompous claims about Iceland's superiority to
America in all things great and small. Just wait until ALCOA turns formerly pristine wonders of nature to a moonscape
of toxic waste and poisons your groundwater.

One thing America is right about ---> banning whaling and standing by it. Someday, Iceland will catch up with the rest
of the conservation-minded civilized world. Until then, they will get no dollars or credit from me and millions like me
for their self-righteous defense of whaling and their criminal refusal to release the billions in their banks to distraught
depositors abroad.

[ExPatLeftist]

88. So, are you saying you don't have a logical reason why whales should be a preferred species?

I see you chose to go ad hominem again rather than answer the question, which seems to indicate to me that you can't answer it.

I am all for protecting endangered species, so stop trying that trite bait-and-switch when we both know Minke whales are not endangered.

Your only indication of the criteria that should protect whales is that they are not "livestock animals". So are you saying no animals should be killed, other than livestock?

It is a simple question, and one that no anti-whaling activist I have ever spoken to has been able to answer in any but the most subjective of ways (they usually just get pissed and start attacking me like you did so they do not have to answer the question): Why must whales, over any other non-endangered creature, be globally banned from being hunted? And what are the specific criteria that humans should look to for universal bans on hunting specific animals?

It is purely subjective. It is great that you love whales. So do I - more than you will ever know or believe. But I believe that cultural bullying and trivialization of other sovereign nations, particularly at the hands of individuals in and the government of the USA, must stop. Keep your sacred dollars that you would never have spent in Iceland anyway. And I hope you will clean up your back yard before you start thumbing your noses at other nations simply because they have different beliefs - and sacred cows - than you.

PS I liked the whole "I hope your whole country collapses economically and then turns into a wasteland" schtick. Pure mature class.

[ClarkUSA]

89. Your idea of logic is repeating Iceland's right wing gov't.'s pro-whaling lobby talking points.

Like all conservationists, I am against the hunting of all protected and endangered species, a designation that includes
the minke whale. Now try and spin that.

As for what will happen to "your country" under ALCOA, blame your right-wing government's plutocrats. I'm sure you'll find
that many of your more enlightened countrymen agree with me, so your supercilious sneering at what I said is amusing.

The truth hurts, eh? You'd better buy people an overpriced beer upwind from the smelting.

[ExPatLeftist]

90. So no answer then?

as to why non-endangered species should be protected?

It is sounding more and more like "because I said so" to me. It's a faith thing.

BTW The Icelandic "right wing" government you keep mentioning is far to the left of the US Democrats. I hate that party and belong to the Green Left.

[ClarkUSA]

91. I answered you but you clearly support the hunting of protected species like the minke whale.

So I find myself rather amused at your somewhat dimwitted yet determined refusal to recognize what I said. Your rhetorically
attack-based dogmatic responses are beginning to repeat themselves like a skipping record.

Your lack of acknowledgement of what I have said is a clear mark of a dishonest broker, so I know that you simply cannot
respect the conservationist's credo regarding protected species as well as endangered species. You're obviously a
right wing nationalist when it comes to defending the indefensible about Iceland. Sad, because this is a progressive website
and your pro-whaling arguments are more at home at Free Republic than DU. If you are an example of the Icelandic Green
Party, I feel sorry for the native wildlife.

As for your pronouncements, it's 'sounding more and more like "because I said so" to me.' Ironic, isn't it?

[ExPatLeftist]

92. HAHAHA I'll be sure to tell my leftist party that!

You know nothing about me and obviously nothing about the cultural factor of whaling in Iceland. Tell me, have you ever been to Iceland? I really doubt it. Which makes me really wonder what your beef with this tiny nation is - every post here that I have replied to from you has been a bash in some way - we are all racists, deserve our financial melt down, are horrible monster whalers and somehow now "right wingers"... Pretty impressive for a socialist nation of about 300.000. Oh, and I note that your reason for protecting whales is still that they are...um... protected.

Here, whaling is not a left or right issue. I laugh at your assertion that I am somehow right wing because I support the right of sovereign nations to not be bullied into changing everything they do based on blowhard demands from people in a nation that seriously needs to look in the mirror - speaking of defending the indefensible.

Your attitude of mandating to other nations and ignoring the cultural aspects all together is a prime example of one of the many reasons why the US is so poorly respected around the world. You want to rush in and tell people what to do, from the outside looking in, rather than learning about the culture and accepting that their values are different, but just as valid as your own.

Enjoy your fallacies and personal attacks, I am out.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Yes, and enjoy your whale meat while you're at it.

Your pompous and self-righteous misrepresentation of my views is why you're a dishonest broker in any argument over Iceland's
misguided determination to continue whaling as soon as they find a market for it. I wonder why they can't, eh? You know why?
Because the vast majority of people in the global marketplace are rightly repulsed at the thought of eating the flesh of a protected
or endangered species.

Your sanctimonious cloaking of your defense of whaling as some sort of "sovereign" issue is another right wing gov't. pro-whaling
lobby talking point repeated ad nauseum by Japan and Norway, which is exactly why Iceland and those other nations are not at all
respected by marine conservationists (and would-be tourists) the world over.

What's next on your menu? Bushmeat from Africa?

[LanternWaste]

93. Reasoned criticism lacking citations or source material

Reasoned criticism lacking citations or source material becomes little more than mere conjecture.

However, I have full faith and confidence that you can indeed cite valid, peer-reviewed studies which conclude that the Icelanders are racist at their core as you have postulated, yes...?

[ClarkUSA]

95. Your gross misrepresentation of what I said is proof you are lacking in reading comphrehension.

See Reply 31 for what an alleged Icelander said:

"Yes, I know some people here that are like that - would not want their daughter to marry a black man."

Get off your high horse before you get a nosebleed.

[LanternWaste]

96. Ahhh,,, merely anecdotal evidence.

BTW... I never learned to ride-- I spent those summers learning how to cite sources.

On edit:

Edit: you posted "they are also quite proud of their genetic purity" Right-- you're simply talking about one or two people.... :eyes:

You're quite the fellow to dance out of a corner when it's convenient, it seems. Bless your little heart...

[ClarkUSA]

97. Yes, racism is often based on anecdoctal evidence because people do not volunteer their bias.

D'oh! :eyes:

And it's nice to see you impugn the opinion of someone I quoted who is a self-described Icelander. You're quite the sanctimonious
ass as a rule, it seems. Birds of a feather....

Now go and spend another summer learning about the Bradley Effect as I have no patience for ignorant fools masquerading as social
anthropologists.

[ExPatLeftist]

19. This is not true.

Show me a poll that says Icelanders are "proud of their genetic purity".

Also, not that Icelanders support Obama by a landslide.

I find this prejudice about Icelanders ironic given your claim.

[ClarkUSA]

26. A poll? Gimme a break.

You know very well there are none. But it is well-known that Icelanders are extremely inbred and like the Amish, represent
a laboratory population beloved of geneticists. If you don't think that Icelanders are proud of their history and traditions
(and ergo, their pure genes), just look at their pigheaded decision to hunt whales, which is just one of many examples of their
national pride.

Let's see what happens if a boatload of dark-skinned foreigners came to live among them. Not that the government would
ever allow that to happen, unlike most governments in Europe.

[ExPatLeftist]

30. What the fuck are you talking about??

Tell me, how long have you lived in Iceland? Because you seem to believe you know a lot about it. All of which is false.

People here are proud of their history and traditions as people all over the world are - WTF does that have to do with "pure genes"? The nation is beloved by geneticists, that is true (for MANY reasons - inbreeding not being the primary one of them), but outside of that area of science, people here do not talk about genes at all. And I know very few racists here - far fewer than I had the displeasure to meet in the US. There are always some issues with integration in any nation, and Iceland is no exception. But the fact is that the integration of Iceland is simply occurring later than in other nations due to its isolation.

The people here are mostly white. That is not because they are using some sort of Nazi breeding doctrine, but rather because they are a fairly isolated population of mostly Nordic descent. Does that somehow make them racist? Isn't that attitude in and of itself racist?

Excuse the fuck out of me for asking for a poll when you tried to speak for the majority of people in another nation. I tend to think if you are going to make such claims you should be able to back them up, rather than just pulling shit out of your ass and then saying "Evidence? Gimme a break."

This might be difficult for you to understand, but in essence writing of an entire nation as inbred racists might just rub some people in that nation the wrong way - myself included. You should really come here and check it out if you have not (seems like you have not as your slanted views are way off) before you write off the entire country based on bullshit and third-hand conjecture - and then act like you are an expert because of it.

Oh, and by the way, there are several "boatloads of dark-skinned foreigners" living here - as allowed by the government.

Also, the Icelanders' "pigheaded decision" to hunt whales was made several centuries before the US even existed.

[ClarkUSA]

62. "Iceland breaks 21-year-old whale hunting ban" (MSNBC, 23 Oct. 2006)

<<Also, the Icelanders' "pigheaded decision" to hunt whales was made several centuries before the US even existed.>>

It appears you're wrong. But you knew that. Link to proof you're intentionally obfuscating: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15363210/

Now, I am tired of your verbal abuse and your ridiculously thin-skinned defensiveness. As for my connection to Iceland,
you'll never know because I never get personal with assholes.

[ExPatLeftist]

64. You are intentionally missing my point regarding "centuries".

And as to "assholes" - tell me, would your definition include people who offhandedly offend and belittle entire nations? Mine would. My reaction was based on your incendiary remarks. Live with it.

[ClarkUSA]

70. No, you tried to play me for a fool by making a misleading statement. Now you're backtracking.

How typical of blustering bullies.

As for being offhandly offensive and belittling entire nations, that's rich. Have you read back through your sneering
comments about America in this thread?

As for my being "incendiary" (which is laughably thin-skinned again) -- live with it. Iceland has got plenty of problems,
so your blind pride is misplaced. I have no such blind pride in any country, much less my own.

[ExPatLeftist]

73. I have no blind pride.

I have chosen to live here after 25 years in the US and several years other places. I see many faults as only a nationalized foreigner could, but I also see the bright spots. I hear very one-sided arguments constantly about Iceland and the whaling issue, or dismissing Iceland as a nation immediately as was done in this thread. It is ridiculous and narrow minded.

BTW nothing I said about the US is not true. I love it, especially what it was created as. But it has gone down the shitter of late. And by "of late" means the last 30 years or so. I have seen the US raping the planet and people in nations all over the planet - simple fact, sorry if you do not like it. I have not seen Iceland doing that. I will continue to work to make Iceland a better place, as well as the US.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Well, you coulda fooled me. You're awfully goddamn touchy.

Your comparing Iceland to the U.S. on any metric is a bit laughable considering the difference in GNP, population, and military
strength. As a student of international political economy, it's safe to say you're comparing apples and oranges.

Your implication that everyone who criticized Iceland on this thread "is ridiculous and narrow minded" yet you are an arbiter of
truth about the U.S. is also amusingly insufferable, considering you have been out of the country for well over a generation. :eyes:

America has evolved greatly in the past 30 years in many ways that is admirable and which is occurring nowhere else in the
world (Exhibit A: See Barack Obama). And just wait to see what we'll do in the next sixteen years under the Obama and
Biden two-term presidencies.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Their genetic purity is a historical accident

They had a small founding population (it's still only about 300,000 people in all) and until very recently, they had little to attract immigrants.

[ClarkUSA]

85. I understand that.

That's not the issue what I was addressing.

[ExPatLeftist]

13. Iceland is one of the most environmentally friendly nations on the planet.

They just choose to select their own sacred cows as opposed to allowing another nation to push values onto them (and no, nothing hunted here is on the endangered list).

I do not understand the idea of Americans, who live in one of the worst environmental nations on the planet, criticizing one of the best. Even criticism and discussion is one thing, but it seems to so often be hand-in-hand with monetary threats, which I view as arrogant, in an "ugly American" sort of way.

I have no doubt that the pollution alone from the US kills more whales per year than the minimal hunt in Iceland. Not to mention all other species killed by that same pollution and deforestation, and not to mention all of the other ways in which the US kills the wildlife of the planet in a way that the tiny island nation of Iceland could never imagine - and would never enact. Yet you are making threats to deny any single dime of your money to run to one of the greenest nations on Earth - in a protest in the name of the environment - while you spend nearly every one of those precious dimes in a nation that leads the planet in environmental destruction.

Total disconnect.

[Icelander]

20. Touche. n/t

[Coventina]

50. Well, if it's any comfort to you

My "threat" of boycott is a rather empty one.

Given my current financial situation, I'm no more likely to take an international vacation than I am to sprout wings and fly.

I'm not going to argue with you over the amount of pollution produced by the United States vs. Iceland. But really, the circumstances are so different between the two nations that you cannot do a fair comparison. It would be great if all of America could use geothermal for heating & electricity, but it's just not possible. Iceland is LUCKY. There's no sense in feeling smug over luck.

[ExPatLeftist]

53. No smugness here. But give the PEOPLE some credit.

Just because a nation has resources available to it does not mean that they will use them to great benefit. If the US went almost totally solar in a short time period, I would say the US would deserve some credit for that - not simply say that they are "LUCKY" that the sun exists.

The culture of Iceland is what makes a lot of this stuff possible, and it is selling them very short to claim that it is just luck. Considering the environment here and the harshness of the land, lucky is hardly what these people have been. Resourceful is what they are, and use what is available. Other nations have geothermal energy and water sources (including the US) but do not use them.

But that is only one aspect of what makes Iceland so green. And not all of can even be argued as "luck". The Icelandic people have worked in close conjunction with nature since their arrival here over 1000 years ago, and the attitude is the same today - cooperation rather than enmity with nature.

I would say it is a good choice to not argue Icelandic vs. US pollution - as I am sure you are aware. The situation is different, yes - but I think that is often used as an excuse as well. There is no use in denying that the US could have done and could be doing a helluva lot more for the environment, they have tons of resources, they just do not use them.

Sure, Iceland has issues as well, I am not trying to paint a picture of it as a perfect nation by any means - but to write of their green-ness as due to luck and imply that the US can even come close to holding a candle to the environmentalism of Iceland is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

[Coventina]

59. Okay, can we all move to Iceland then?

The bottom line is, (and I hope you can agree) is that there are just too many PEOPLE on this planet!

Iceland can be (relatively) ecological because it has been blessed with some easily accessed natural resources and a small population.

It's apples and oranges. Yes, the US could be doing more, and believe me, there are MILLIONS of us working hard at it. I'd be willing to be that there are more people with smaller individual ecological footprints here in the US than there are in the population of Iceland. It's just an unfair comparison.

On edit: Despite (Iceland's) natural advantages, the small population (around 270,000 people) produces more greenhouse gas emissions per head than any other country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1727312.stm

[ClarkUSA]

66. Not true anymore. See Reply #11...

And Americans never brag that we are one of the most environmentally-friendly countries on Earth.

So rag on America if you wish, but please remember we are not exactly playing on the same field as Iceland. :eyes:

[ExPatLeftist]

69. I was not "ragging"

I was pointing out the constant finger-pointing (ragging) from, mostly, people in the US at other nations before looking in the mirror. Also I was pointing out that personal preferences should not be forced on other nations, be it regarding signing on for bogus coalition of the willing tripe being forced by the right or the left forcing its sacred cows on other nations. I think we all have enough to do keeping our own governments in line without having to look abroad at other nations and at the mere mention of their name start bashing them for what is a minor fragment of the national identity.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Of course you were. But it's okay when you do it to America, right?

Your sanctimony is only exceeded by your lack of self-awareness. :eyes:

[Icelander]

14. Yeah , whaling.

Im not too happy about that either but we are a nation of fishermen and in some instances the whale eats up our quota and thats how they justify the whole thing. I wasn´t too happy about the polar bear but apparently we had no choice , the equipment wasnt there to tranquilise the bear so he had to be shot, they did not want to take the risk of him wandering into high street.

While I understand your concerns and respect your opinion I think our attention should be on the fact that the polar bear seems to be deserting its natural habitat and swimming hundred of miles away from the ice , or whats left of it.
That to me is a matter of much more concern then the poor unlucky bear that got shot.

[bean fidhleir]

24. A local vet said he himself had enough dope for the bear in the boot of his car

All he needed was the applicator - which could have been fetched in less than an hour's time. In his considered professional opinion, the killing was totally unnecessary (and the cops being photographed smiling over the corpse as though they'd had a big successful hunt suggests that the vet's disgusted claim was bang on).

[bitchkitty]

36. It is terrible.

But unfortunately, you find men like that everywhere. You can't judge an entire nation by the acts of one group of rednecks with testosterone overload - they're everywhere, in every country, of every color.

[ExPatLeftist]

39. Thank you for being a voice of reason. :)

I really do not understand the disconnect in that Americans generally want to be viewed as individuals ("don't blame me for Bush", etc.) and yet some Americans will jump to paint entire nations with the same brush based on the acts of a few individuals. I expect this from Republicans. When Democrats do it, it makes me quite sad and bewildered.

[bean fidhleir]

41. I know. I'm not trying to indict the nation, just correct Icelander's apparent acceptance of the

"official story" about the killing.

That that poor creature was shot dead after coming from the water exhausted and probably desperately hungry after a 200-mile swim for life...I just found that especially heartbreaking.

[ExPatLeftist]

43. Unfortunately, this is standard operating procedure for Polar Bears coming to land

They are extremely hungry and crazed, and will immediately attack humans on sight. They are considered too risky to be allowed to roam, and for the safety of people they are usually shot as soon as they hit land, unless other arrangements are already in place.

I am not condoning the practice, just letting you know the viewpoint from the authorities here, in general.

[bitchkitty]

58. I believe they'll see more of this - more bears

wandering into populated areas. It's so heartbreaking, but you are right about their behavior. Even if they're not starving, they still see people as prey, and bears will do what bears will do.

Unless they come up with some sort of mandatory bear-tranquilizer gun that law enforcement carry, then the bears will keep being shot.

If a polar bear were charging me, there would be no need to shoot it. I would die of fear the moment I laid eyes on it. :(

I wish they had tried to save the bear, though. If people were made aware of its presence (and it would be kind of hard for it to sneak up on someone) then maybe a little time could have seen the proper tranquilizers used, and the poor thing saved.

This world is turning awfully sucky, and not just for the bears. They're just the first to go.

[wordpix]

68. that's my message to the Icelandic gov, too

:grr:

[ExPatLeftist]

75. But honestly, and I mean this most literally

What will your boycott cost Iceland? How much do you spend on Icelandic products and services per year?

[lligrd]

2. But Aren't They A Bit Tee'd Off At Americans Right Now? nt

[Icelander]

17. well....

We are pissed off at the US administration, not the American population as a whole.
I guess we are somewhat disappointed in you guys but of course you are welcome over here, in fact I have met quite a few Americans here and they always get a good reception.

[DBoon]

7. Iceland is a beautiful country

and relies entirely on geothermal energy for heating and I believe most of its electricity.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Their right-wing gov't. sold their souls and landscape to ALCOA for aluminum smelting (highly toxic)

Read about it here: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=83

[Milspec]

10. I would love to visit Iceland

Icelandic people I have met, both men and women are the most attractive and likable people on earth.

[Icelander]

16. Thanks.

Come to think of it I am rather handsome.... unassuming and likable :eyes:

[pitohui]

28. i would like to visit also

some of my hubby's colleagues went for business and i heard some scary stories about the price of booze tho!

the deal seems to be only thru march 31, i'm wondering about the weather, esp. for a tour of the glaciers in the countryside!

[ExPatLeftist]

32. It is beautiful here :)

And yes, the booze is deadly expensive - It was roughly $10 for a beer or a shot in a bar, and a (one) beer in the state store would cost you about 3 bucks, a bottle of booze about $50.

I say "was", though since you are planning to come in the future, and since the meltdown we are riding the currency-exchange and inflation roller coaster from hell.

By the way, I'll buy you an overpriced beer if you come here - feel free to PM me. :)

[pitohui]

33. hee hee i'll have to take you up on that if i can swing it ! EOM

m

[ForrestGump]

35. But can any Americans afford to travel there? Or anywhere?

Seems to me (true of Vegas and apparently of several other major US destinations) that Europeans are the primary tourist components in this country these days. Their economies have been doing better (so far) as has their exchange rate (well...it was).

[pitohui]

37. australia has a weak dollar and yet australians travel everywhere

where there's a will there's a way

[ncliberal]

38. I really want to take a trip to Iceland.

I've been fascinated with the country since I did a paper years ago in an International Marketing class in college. It's a beautiful country and I love what I know of the culture. It is an egalitarian society with a flat hierarchy in business. They have a very low crime rate and are always at or near the top of the peaceful countries list. They have the highest literacy rate in the world, an excellent health care system and an extensive welfare system. They are very technologically advanced and place a big emphasis on education and the arts. I could go on and on.

Iceland is on my list of countries where I would love to move if things don't go our way in this election. I am definitely going to try to visit next year if at all possible.

[ExPatLeftist]

42. I hope you will be able to visit :)

Thanks for pointing out some of the better points of this country. It is a great place to live, and I am sure you will find yourself very welcomed here as a traveler.
PM me and I'll buy you a beer when you get here. I'll start saving now... ;)

[ncliberal]

44. Thanks. Maybe I should buy you a beer. :)

I do have a couple of questions. If you don't mind I would like to PM you.

[ExPatLeftist]

45. Please feel free - always glad to help. :) n/t

[lunatica]

47. I have so much disposable income that I'll fly right over for the great bargain!

What Americans are they talking about? The 1% who don't care how much they spend on their vacations?

[pitohui]

54. you don't think $400 round trip is a good fare?

you spend more than that going to encino

[lunatica]

86. My point is I don't have $400 dollars disposable income

I don't have any disposable income. It all runs out at the end of the month so there's none left to throw away which is what disposable means.

[pitohui]

87. but you mentioned a figure of 1 percent of americans

way more than 1 percent of americans have a disposable monthly income of $400

i do not have cable or cell phone service or that card you stick in your computer to make it do the wireless thing when you stop in a coffee shop, when i was asked to help my friend go over his monthly bills, he was paying $150 for cable, $60 for the wireless, $200 negotiated flat rate for his 2 cell phones (he could add two more for the same price but hasn't) -- that's $400 per month in disposable income right there, he is just making different choices

many people do not have any disposable income and agreed, those folks can't travel even at the best price, but no one markets to those people any more

european and australian kids travel all over the world on almost nothing, they do not wait until they are older and have money saved, they go right out of high school for a "gap year" on the little bit of money from student jobs! -- i've learned from them and their dedication to chasing the best experience for the best price, agreed, many americans can't do this, but some of them can, even those w. lower incomes (if you have kids of your own, agreed, all bets are OFF)

yes the euro and the pound are strong hard currency, but every time you meet an australian or a new zealand or a canadian traveler, and you meet many, you are meeting someone who is able to travel and experience on a currency that isn't so strong, no reason why americans can't learn from that