If you had asked me forty, even thirty, years ago, I never thought I would be writing a eulogy for Teddy Kennedy whose death at 77 marks the end of an incredible span of almost half a century---47 years, to be precise---in the U.S. Senate.
No one was quicker than I to condemn his actions at Chappaquiddick and the resulting tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne by drowning. I also remember his tempestuous marriage to Joan Kennedy in what seemed to be an eternal gossip page scandal of drinking and debauchery. In fact, I wrote a blog back in March against his being knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.
I did not always agree with him politically, but you cannot dispute his steadfast devotion to the causes of the underprivileged and, in particular, his efforts for the cause of Civil Rights. He was a consistent champion of the poor and neglected and represented a powerful voice for the conscience of America.
He is an example of the true meaning of the word "redemption"---a man who turned his life around, overcame his stormy past and became a powerful and effective political voice.
The lion of the Senate is gone and he will be missed. Requiescat in pace.
T
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
FLIPPING BIRDS
The latest international hornets nest is the return of the convicted Lockerbie terrorist, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrabi, to Libya, having been freed by Scotland for “compassionate” reasons. I find it interesting that compassion applies to a convicted murderer but not to the families who lost 270 dear ones in that horrific bombing at Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
A conspiracy theory is floating around in the papers and on the tube which has it that a deal was made to protect U.K. oil interests in Libya where British Petroleum (B.P.) has a huge investment and other British business interests. The British government has denied this vigorously. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary (the equivalent of the Secretary of Commerce in the U.S.A.), in the absence of the Prime Minister., Gordon Brown, who is on holiday and has been extremely mute, put out a strong denial that a deal had been made. I wonder: oil makes a lot of unlikely bedfellows, as does the profit motive.
Several British governmental voices have been quick to condemn the tasteless celebrations in Libya that greeted the arrival of the terrorist who was hailed as a hero. Obviously, America has made its feelings known to both Libya and Scotland.
Personally, I think we have a case of dual bird flippings (or two fingers up in U.K.). I think both Libya and Scotland just love the opportunity to demonstrate how they can stand up to the big bad U.S.A. and assert their symbolic independence. No one is going to tell them what to do, by God! We run our own countries, and we’ll do it, as Frank Sinatra said, our way!
In the case of Libya, they love to posture in front of the Arab world against these western infidels. As for Scotland, I love the Scots, but they have that same stubborn streak as those other Celts, the Irish, and they are pushing hard for devolution, the separation of Scotland from the U.K as an independent nation, so they want to express their own opinion, even when it’s wrong.
It was a bad decision which they are trying to justify by claiming that this is true compassion. Their own M.S.P. (Members of the Scottish Parliament) are planning a discussion and some are pressing for a debate. That should be interesting…
Sometimes it’s a hasty and ill-advised move to flip a bird.
A conspiracy theory is floating around in the papers and on the tube which has it that a deal was made to protect U.K. oil interests in Libya where British Petroleum (B.P.) has a huge investment and other British business interests. The British government has denied this vigorously. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary (the equivalent of the Secretary of Commerce in the U.S.A.), in the absence of the Prime Minister., Gordon Brown, who is on holiday and has been extremely mute, put out a strong denial that a deal had been made. I wonder: oil makes a lot of unlikely bedfellows, as does the profit motive.
Several British governmental voices have been quick to condemn the tasteless celebrations in Libya that greeted the arrival of the terrorist who was hailed as a hero. Obviously, America has made its feelings known to both Libya and Scotland.
Personally, I think we have a case of dual bird flippings (or two fingers up in U.K.). I think both Libya and Scotland just love the opportunity to demonstrate how they can stand up to the big bad U.S.A. and assert their symbolic independence. No one is going to tell them what to do, by God! We run our own countries, and we’ll do it, as Frank Sinatra said, our way!
In the case of Libya, they love to posture in front of the Arab world against these western infidels. As for Scotland, I love the Scots, but they have that same stubborn streak as those other Celts, the Irish, and they are pushing hard for devolution, the separation of Scotland from the U.K as an independent nation, so they want to express their own opinion, even when it’s wrong.
It was a bad decision which they are trying to justify by claiming that this is true compassion. Their own M.S.P. (Members of the Scottish Parliament) are planning a discussion and some are pressing for a debate. That should be interesting…
Sometimes it’s a hasty and ill-advised move to flip a bird.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
THE BABY AND THE BATH WATER
On both sides of the Atlantic critics of our economic woes have been numerous and vocal---with good cause, I agree. The world economy is in bad shape, and the fix ain't easy.
A think tank on the left here in England named Compass is suggesting that part of the answer is to form a "high pay commission" which would oversee salaries and bonuses in the City (the Brit equivalent of Wall Street) to determine if they are excessive and add to the decline of economic stability. At first reading, this idea sounds plausible; after all, the greedy bastards are overpaid, exacerbate the economic problems and should be under supervision. In our current mood it is easy to say, "String 'em up!"
But reconsider this idea. Do you really want another bureaucratic layer of "commissioners" acting as judge and jury of what is excessive pay? Do we want to take the chance of penalizing true entreprenurial spirit and innovative thinking that brings about growth and development of new ideas and new products? If executives create companies, make saleable products which are profitable, they deserve to be rewarded.
It is not fair to make the bankers, insurance companies and investment firms the sole villians for vilification. Let's face it: the cult of greed was sowed starting in the Reagan eighties, fertilized by the laissez faire attitudes of the Clinton years and harvested by the "anything goes" attitude of W. and his buddies. Long-term planning, just plain looking ahead to see where to go in the future, was sacrificed for short-term gains and a "feel-good" boom economy. The ruling economic principle was carpe diem---enjoy it while you've got it, take the money and run!
We don't need a new commission. Capitalism and the free market can still work, so long as we have some moral good sense to go with them, and guiding principles that say products should benefit consumers and users, be sold at reasonable profits and the entrepreneurs/executives should be rewarded for success only. We have enough watch dogs and built-in safeguards, if exercised, to control greed.
So don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Just return to some of those old-fashioned values and virtues, corny things like hard work, thriftiness, planning and, most of all, ethics...I think if you exercise your memory, you can remember those old values.
A think tank on the left here in England named Compass is suggesting that part of the answer is to form a "high pay commission" which would oversee salaries and bonuses in the City (the Brit equivalent of Wall Street) to determine if they are excessive and add to the decline of economic stability. At first reading, this idea sounds plausible; after all, the greedy bastards are overpaid, exacerbate the economic problems and should be under supervision. In our current mood it is easy to say, "String 'em up!"
But reconsider this idea. Do you really want another bureaucratic layer of "commissioners" acting as judge and jury of what is excessive pay? Do we want to take the chance of penalizing true entreprenurial spirit and innovative thinking that brings about growth and development of new ideas and new products? If executives create companies, make saleable products which are profitable, they deserve to be rewarded.
It is not fair to make the bankers, insurance companies and investment firms the sole villians for vilification. Let's face it: the cult of greed was sowed starting in the Reagan eighties, fertilized by the laissez faire attitudes of the Clinton years and harvested by the "anything goes" attitude of W. and his buddies. Long-term planning, just plain looking ahead to see where to go in the future, was sacrificed for short-term gains and a "feel-good" boom economy. The ruling economic principle was carpe diem---enjoy it while you've got it, take the money and run!
We don't need a new commission. Capitalism and the free market can still work, so long as we have some moral good sense to go with them, and guiding principles that say products should benefit consumers and users, be sold at reasonable profits and the entrepreneurs/executives should be rewarded for success only. We have enough watch dogs and built-in safeguards, if exercised, to control greed.
So don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Just return to some of those old-fashioned values and virtues, corny things like hard work, thriftiness, planning and, most of all, ethics...I think if you exercise your memory, you can remember those old values.
Friday, August 14, 2009
THAT BOGEYMAN IS HERE AGAIN!
The Republicans are at it again, raising the spectre of that old nemesis---dare I use the dirty word?---SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!! Now they are flinging indiscriminate barbs at the National Health Service in U.K., hereafter referred to as the N.H.S. They are using all the tired old arguments I've been hearing since the fifties about the failures of the N.H.S.: the long waiting time to see a doctor, the inferior quality of medical treatments, inavailability of specialists, etc., etc---same old, same old. This strategy of dumping on the N.H.S. is to convince the public that the attempts by President Obama to reform and extend heath care to the 40+ millon who don't have it will lead to a monolithic super-government supervised by a Death Squad which will plummet us to chaos and ruin. Does the fact that America, the leading industrial nation in the world and powerhouse of the G-20 is the ONLY major nation that does not have a national health plan count for anything? Tell that to the 40+ million.
The N.H.S. here in U.K., like the Empire, strikes back. Published in "The Daily Telegraph" were a list of allegations the right wing had claimed about the N.H.S. and the N.H.S. response.
For example, the conservatives claim that people over 59 can't receive heart repairs, stents or bypasses. Fact: a national audit on cardiac surgery demonstrated that 20% of all cardiac patients were 75 or over.
Claim: Women under 25 are not allowed to be screened for cervical cancer. Fact: Women in Scotland, Wales and Northern Island (all part of United Kingdom) get regular screenings; in England, under 25 can be screened if deemed clinically needed.
Claim: Ted Kennedy at 77 would be too old to be treated for his brain tumor in England. Fact:
Health service is provided on the basis of clinical need, regardless of age, according to a Department of Health spokesman.
Claim: 4 in 10 cancer patients under N.H.S. don't have access to an oncologist. Fact: Macmillian Cancer Support states those figures are 15 years old and that the number of cancer specialists has risen by 59.7% since 1997.
You know the old adage that you can skew numbers (and facts) to suit your purposes, and, to my mind, that's what the right wing is doing. The N.H.S. isn't perfect, like most bureaucracies, but if there are critical life decisions to be acted upon, they come through.
The Nobel Physicist Stephen Hawking was in Washington to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our highest civilian honor. He is wheelchair-bound and has suffered for years from Lou Gehrig's disease---but he said in an interview in Washington that he would not be alive without the N.H.S.
Q.E.D.
The N.H.S. here in U.K., like the Empire, strikes back. Published in "The Daily Telegraph" were a list of allegations the right wing had claimed about the N.H.S. and the N.H.S. response.
For example, the conservatives claim that people over 59 can't receive heart repairs, stents or bypasses. Fact: a national audit on cardiac surgery demonstrated that 20% of all cardiac patients were 75 or over.
Claim: Women under 25 are not allowed to be screened for cervical cancer. Fact: Women in Scotland, Wales and Northern Island (all part of United Kingdom) get regular screenings; in England, under 25 can be screened if deemed clinically needed.
Claim: Ted Kennedy at 77 would be too old to be treated for his brain tumor in England. Fact:
Health service is provided on the basis of clinical need, regardless of age, according to a Department of Health spokesman.
Claim: 4 in 10 cancer patients under N.H.S. don't have access to an oncologist. Fact: Macmillian Cancer Support states those figures are 15 years old and that the number of cancer specialists has risen by 59.7% since 1997.
You know the old adage that you can skew numbers (and facts) to suit your purposes, and, to my mind, that's what the right wing is doing. The N.H.S. isn't perfect, like most bureaucracies, but if there are critical life decisions to be acted upon, they come through.
The Nobel Physicist Stephen Hawking was in Washington to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our highest civilian honor. He is wheelchair-bound and has suffered for years from Lou Gehrig's disease---but he said in an interview in Washington that he would not be alive without the N.H.S.
Q.E.D.
Monday, August 10, 2009
A REAL WAKE-UP CALL
I read a very interesting article in "The Daily Telegraph" this past weekend regarding the phenomenal growth of Muslim immigration in the European Union countries, including the U.K., where, it is predicted, the Muslim population of the E.U. will be 20% by the year 2050---a startling growth from the current 5% in 2008. The current leaders in Muslim population in Europe are: (1) France at 9%, (2) Holland at 5.2%, (3) Sweden at 5%, (4) Austria at 4.8% and (5) Germany at 4.3%. The rest of Europe vary from 3.7% down to 1.7%.
I also saw on the internet a couple of months ago a video regarding the birth rates among the “white” populations as contrasted to Hispanics, Africans, Asian Indians, Chinese and other races which demonstrated that the birth rate among Caucasian nations was falling dramatically or, at the best, stagnant while the other races, excluding the Chinese who have had a strict population control program in effect for some years, are surging upwards.
We know, for example, in the United States the birth rate of Hispanics has shown sizeable increases with the result that California, the most populous state, has reached the point where the “minority” races outnumber the whites.
I am quoting these statistics not as a white racist but as a realist who thinks it is high time that America and Europe begin to make a priority of how best to integrate these growing minorities into our national life. Restrictive immigration policies are too late: Pandora is already out of the box. Historically, America has always relied on the “melting pot” theory where immigrants over many years slowly but surely become part of the mainstream of population. It has not always been easy, and many ethnic groups have suffered through humiliation and prejudice before acceptance; witness, the Jews, the Irish and the Italians, not to mention Afro-Americans who are still undergoing this process.
Now we have a new dilemma in the influx of Muslims in America and, particularly, in Europe. The major problems with certain ethnic groups in the past has been the language barrier with the need of the immigrants to learn the home language in order to become part of the country. Now, with the Muslims, we also face, in addition to the language problem, the religion difference. All countries with immigrants have historically had other world religions introduced into their cultures, but, unfortunately, within the Muslim world, there exists a lunatic fringe of extremists, under the guise of true believers, who declare the West, especially America and Britain, their mortal enemies to be fought and destroyed. I am not taking a broad brush and smearing all Muslims as extremists, for I am confident that the vast majority are people of true faith and good will seeking a peaceful and prosperous living when they emigrate.
What needs to be done by both America and Europe is to face up to this new problem and develop a policy of integrating these new arrivals in our respective countries. Make mandatory courses in learning the home language to accelerate the process of integration into the society. If you can’t speak or understand the language spoken in your country of choice, how can you possibly prosper and find economic opportunity? You are automatically relegated to the lower economic strata, it goes without saying. When you have improved your lot in life and are economically more secure, you are obviously less inclined to radical activities against that country.
You also need to stimulate the aspirations for growth by the integration process where you encourage breaking out of the nationalistic ghettos, those tight little islands set up in most major cities where new immigrants live only with other immigrants of the same or similar backgrounds. In these economic times, that is hard to accomplish, but some kind of economic stimuli packages must be developed for the purpose of encouraging the development of independence and striking out in new directions. For example, here in the U.S.A. in the reformation and rebuilding of out infrastructure, could some of these new workers be used as laborers and trained in new professions and be taught English at night. European countries could develop similar programs, as well.
You also need to practice more selective screening of immigrants to ensure their true desire for a better life. I know there is no foolproof means test to make such a determination, but closer scrutiny is necessary so that constructive and truly eager people, really seeking new lives and opportunities, would be the norm for acceptance as immigrants and not the "free ride" seekers.
Let me end with a quotation from Jerome Vignon, the director for employment and social affairs at the European Commission: “…social integration of migrants should be given as much importance as monitoring the inflow of migrants.” These are the facts, people---I think we better deal with them now or we may be planting the seeds for future discord and turmoil.
I also saw on the internet a couple of months ago a video regarding the birth rates among the “white” populations as contrasted to Hispanics, Africans, Asian Indians, Chinese and other races which demonstrated that the birth rate among Caucasian nations was falling dramatically or, at the best, stagnant while the other races, excluding the Chinese who have had a strict population control program in effect for some years, are surging upwards.
We know, for example, in the United States the birth rate of Hispanics has shown sizeable increases with the result that California, the most populous state, has reached the point where the “minority” races outnumber the whites.
I am quoting these statistics not as a white racist but as a realist who thinks it is high time that America and Europe begin to make a priority of how best to integrate these growing minorities into our national life. Restrictive immigration policies are too late: Pandora is already out of the box. Historically, America has always relied on the “melting pot” theory where immigrants over many years slowly but surely become part of the mainstream of population. It has not always been easy, and many ethnic groups have suffered through humiliation and prejudice before acceptance; witness, the Jews, the Irish and the Italians, not to mention Afro-Americans who are still undergoing this process.
Now we have a new dilemma in the influx of Muslims in America and, particularly, in Europe. The major problems with certain ethnic groups in the past has been the language barrier with the need of the immigrants to learn the home language in order to become part of the country. Now, with the Muslims, we also face, in addition to the language problem, the religion difference. All countries with immigrants have historically had other world religions introduced into their cultures, but, unfortunately, within the Muslim world, there exists a lunatic fringe of extremists, under the guise of true believers, who declare the West, especially America and Britain, their mortal enemies to be fought and destroyed. I am not taking a broad brush and smearing all Muslims as extremists, for I am confident that the vast majority are people of true faith and good will seeking a peaceful and prosperous living when they emigrate.
What needs to be done by both America and Europe is to face up to this new problem and develop a policy of integrating these new arrivals in our respective countries. Make mandatory courses in learning the home language to accelerate the process of integration into the society. If you can’t speak or understand the language spoken in your country of choice, how can you possibly prosper and find economic opportunity? You are automatically relegated to the lower economic strata, it goes without saying. When you have improved your lot in life and are economically more secure, you are obviously less inclined to radical activities against that country.
You also need to stimulate the aspirations for growth by the integration process where you encourage breaking out of the nationalistic ghettos, those tight little islands set up in most major cities where new immigrants live only with other immigrants of the same or similar backgrounds. In these economic times, that is hard to accomplish, but some kind of economic stimuli packages must be developed for the purpose of encouraging the development of independence and striking out in new directions. For example, here in the U.S.A. in the reformation and rebuilding of out infrastructure, could some of these new workers be used as laborers and trained in new professions and be taught English at night. European countries could develop similar programs, as well.
You also need to practice more selective screening of immigrants to ensure their true desire for a better life. I know there is no foolproof means test to make such a determination, but closer scrutiny is necessary so that constructive and truly eager people, really seeking new lives and opportunities, would be the norm for acceptance as immigrants and not the "free ride" seekers.
Let me end with a quotation from Jerome Vignon, the director for employment and social affairs at the European Commission: “…social integration of migrants should be given as much importance as monitoring the inflow of migrants.” These are the facts, people---I think we better deal with them now or we may be planting the seeds for future discord and turmoil.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
MORE FROM ALICE IN WONDERLAND
Oh, Lord, here we go again! The P.C. Patrol strikes again!
A furniture store owner in downtown Eastbourne, East Sussex, England, where my wife and I spend our summers, had a bunch of foreign students come into his store, plop down on his floor sample chairs and even lie down on his beds---all the while eating fast food and consuming soft drinks and spilling the food and drink on the chairs, beds and floor. This is not the first time this has happened, and he was really pissed off, with some cause, I might add. He posted two signs: (1) no food or drink allowed in the store (and (2) foreign students not welcome.
The second notice was his big mistake. He has been advised that he may be in violation of human rights and racial equality laws and could be liable for legal action. He probably would have been wiser just to post the first notice and leave it at that, but I'm sure he wa smarting from these inappropriate and expensive (to the store owner) actions of the foreign students.
Then there was an inteview on the local news with several foreign students, all of whom blandly state that they bring food into stores all the time. One even brazenly said, "After all, I have to have some place to eat my lunch."
It is so typical of the time we live in where lack of civility and just plain non-thinking are the rule of the day. Then add to this mixture the cult of Political Correctness to turn a bad situation even sourer with the misapplication of human rights laws.
I did a lot of dumb things as a kid, but eating my lunch in a store and spilling food all over the place was one action I never considered. Am I wrong in thinking the store owner has a few rights, too? I guess my age is showing.
A furniture store owner in downtown Eastbourne, East Sussex, England, where my wife and I spend our summers, had a bunch of foreign students come into his store, plop down on his floor sample chairs and even lie down on his beds---all the while eating fast food and consuming soft drinks and spilling the food and drink on the chairs, beds and floor. This is not the first time this has happened, and he was really pissed off, with some cause, I might add. He posted two signs: (1) no food or drink allowed in the store (and (2) foreign students not welcome.
The second notice was his big mistake. He has been advised that he may be in violation of human rights and racial equality laws and could be liable for legal action. He probably would have been wiser just to post the first notice and leave it at that, but I'm sure he wa smarting from these inappropriate and expensive (to the store owner) actions of the foreign students.
Then there was an inteview on the local news with several foreign students, all of whom blandly state that they bring food into stores all the time. One even brazenly said, "After all, I have to have some place to eat my lunch."
It is so typical of the time we live in where lack of civility and just plain non-thinking are the rule of the day. Then add to this mixture the cult of Political Correctness to turn a bad situation even sourer with the misapplication of human rights laws.
I did a lot of dumb things as a kid, but eating my lunch in a store and spilling food all over the place was one action I never considered. Am I wrong in thinking the store owner has a few rights, too? I guess my age is showing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)