This will be my last blog in 2009 from England as my wife and I are returning home to the U.S.A on Thursday. We're ready to come home, but, as I have said before, I'm not too pleased with the angry divisions tearing us apart back home. I've expressed myself on this before and no doubt will do so in the future. But let's turn to something else...
Today I read that 83 year-old Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former President of France, has written a romantic novel in which he fantasizes that he has an affair with the Princess of Cardiff, a thinly veiled Priness Diana. I read a few quotes from "The Princess and the President" and all I can say is, "Gag me, yuk!" It will probably sell because of his prestigious past and the female subject matter, but it really sounds cornball sop and sentiment.
Now I don't mind a Dirty Old Man---since I'm one myself---fantasizing about a gorgeous princess in moments of erotica, but let's not get carried away, Valery. I'd rather remember you as the worldly and dignified President of France and an able diplomat---not as a hack writer of romantic drivel. Just keep your fantasies private.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
BE NICE----PLEASE
I was delighted to see that the President of the United States, in his interviews with the major TV networks on Sunday past, emphasized having civil debate instead of the "rude" (his word) rantings we hear today.
The far right has every right to dissent and disagree, as do all Americans of whatever political persuasions. But why can't honest differences be debated in a rational and civil way? I often say that my age is showing, but one of the major changes I have seen in my long life is the loss of good old-fashioned, just plain civility. Is it really that hard to air differences in a civil way?
O.K., you don't have to love each other, which is hypocritical, but you can certainly exchange your views so that you can hear each other. I am shocked at the total rudeness of so many conflicting opiners who immediately square off in a verbal boxing stance. They're too busy screaming---and never hear the other side! They are too busy listening to their own rantings.
All that is accomplished is a further inflexibility in thinking and locking out honest dissent.
Does it make you a sissy or a wimp to listen to each other? Come on, America, demonstrate a new old idea---"Democracy in Action"---the right to debate, disagree but ultimately work things out.
The far right has every right to dissent and disagree, as do all Americans of whatever political persuasions. But why can't honest differences be debated in a rational and civil way? I often say that my age is showing, but one of the major changes I have seen in my long life is the loss of good old-fashioned, just plain civility. Is it really that hard to air differences in a civil way?
O.K., you don't have to love each other, which is hypocritical, but you can certainly exchange your views so that you can hear each other. I am shocked at the total rudeness of so many conflicting opiners who immediately square off in a verbal boxing stance. They're too busy screaming---and never hear the other side! They are too busy listening to their own rantings.
All that is accomplished is a further inflexibility in thinking and locking out honest dissent.
Does it make you a sissy or a wimp to listen to each other? Come on, America, demonstrate a new old idea---"Democracy in Action"---the right to debate, disagree but ultimately work things out.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
SPORTS AND THE DOLLAR
The recent flap in the tennis world about Serena Williams at the U.S. Open and her barrage of "F-bombs", as the British press dubbed them, is getting ridiculous and hypocritical. In almost every sport in the world, athletes have bad moments and ""lose it". Tiger Woods recently threw his club and frequently curses; N.B.A. players trash each other with obscenities on a regular basis; baseball teams are involved in mass fights; British football (soccer) players tramp, kick or gouge each other, as do N.F.L. players, etc., etc.
O.K., give Serena a stiffer fine if that bobs your cork, but with her money, that becomes symbolic. Or ban her from a few matches, which is meaningless as she really only cares about majors. But the recent posturing of some tennis officials to ban her from tennis is an empty threat and stupid.
What really concerns me much more is the power of the dollar and commercialism on the length of championship sporting events. Remember the famous "Heidi" incident some years ago when a key N.F.L. game at the most crucial moment was replaced on the air by the prescheduled program of the children's classic? Or, in the case of the U.S. Tennis Open, because of "time considerations" (translate that, money), any five set match must be settled by a tiebreaker. That is ridiculous. Can you imagine the classic confrontations of Federer and Nadal and Federer and Roddick in Wimbledon finals being shortened for commercial considerations? You let first-class athletes fight it out to the end in such situations. It should be part of the contract between the network and the sponsor that all championship matches should be allowed, in the case of five setters, to reach their natural, not a forced, conclusion. The sponsors want their products shown to a mass audience, like the U.S. Open, so do you really think they would refuse to sponsor an event if this rule were in effect?
The networks need to show some guts. The public would back them up.
O.K., give Serena a stiffer fine if that bobs your cork, but with her money, that becomes symbolic. Or ban her from a few matches, which is meaningless as she really only cares about majors. But the recent posturing of some tennis officials to ban her from tennis is an empty threat and stupid.
What really concerns me much more is the power of the dollar and commercialism on the length of championship sporting events. Remember the famous "Heidi" incident some years ago when a key N.F.L. game at the most crucial moment was replaced on the air by the prescheduled program of the children's classic? Or, in the case of the U.S. Tennis Open, because of "time considerations" (translate that, money), any five set match must be settled by a tiebreaker. That is ridiculous. Can you imagine the classic confrontations of Federer and Nadal and Federer and Roddick in Wimbledon finals being shortened for commercial considerations? You let first-class athletes fight it out to the end in such situations. It should be part of the contract between the network and the sponsor that all championship matches should be allowed, in the case of five setters, to reach their natural, not a forced, conclusion. The sponsors want their products shown to a mass audience, like the U.S. Open, so do you really think they would refuse to sponsor an event if this rule were in effect?
The networks need to show some guts. The public would back them up.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
NOT A BAD IDEA
Reading an article in the papers today, I note in Britain the government is about to impose a fine of 1000 pounds (about $1600.00) on motorists who do not insure their cars, even if the cars are locked in a garage or off-road.
In U.K. you must have a badge on your windscreen (windshield to you and me), annually renewable, to show that your car has passed the MOT (Ministry of Transportation) test. Each year you must take your car to a MOT-approved garage where the car is tested for driveability and must pass certain minimum safety requirements before the badge of acceptance is issued.
Some states in the U.S. do this, but I think there is something to be said for a national requirement like the MOT. I can hear the ultra-right starting to scream already, "Oh, my God, here comes more socialism, more government poking noses into our private liberties!"
In U.K. you must have a badge on your windscreen (windshield to you and me), annually renewable, to show that your car has passed the MOT (Ministry of Transportation) test. Each year you must take your car to a MOT-approved garage where the car is tested for driveability and must pass certain minimum safety requirements before the badge of acceptance is issued.
Some states in the U.S. do this, but I think there is something to be said for a national requirement like the MOT. I can hear the ultra-right starting to scream already, "Oh, my God, here comes more socialism, more government poking noses into our private liberties!"
But think a bit more: wouldn't a test that would get clunkers off the road and ensure that drivers have insurance be worthwhile? Isn't one of the major expenses of auto insurance the built-in cost of compensating for the cost of accidents with uninsured motorists? We could possibly reduce the cost of insurance and reduce accidents.
Sure, you wouldn't get the service for free, but I bet, insurancewise, we would be money ahead.
Just another thought from your "socialistic" big brother!
Monday, September 14, 2009
IN DEFENCE OF SCOTLAND
Periodically, as Americans become enraged at national and international political events, we overreact to these events and do some silly things. Remember, when we were pissed off at the French---I mean really pissed off, because we're frequently mad at the contrary French---how we were going to call French Fries "Freedom" Fries?
Now it's Scotlands's turn. We have every reason to be incensed by the shabby Lockerbie affair in which England is deeply involved (or perhaps buried would be an apter choice of words). The Scots have in their laws a "compassionate" clause as well as no death penalty, so legally they were within their rights to free the bomber. But that does not excuse their bad judgment. They could have put him in a prison hospital in Scotland for his remaining time instead of sending him back to Libya, and nobody would have said a word. But we all know how oil and money and secret governmental deals created that shambles.
But let's say a few good words for the Scots. I admit a prejudice: my wife's maiden name was Scott, with English mother and Scottish father from near Glasgow (who spents most of his life in England). Also, on my mother's side, there's a lot of Scottish blood. In fact, her maiden surname, which is my first name, was Alexander.
Now that I've added this forewarning of my prejudices, let me say I have been to Scotland and know quite a few Scots, and they are usually wonderful people. As with any ethnic group, there are always a fair share of horsesasses, but, on the whole, they are generous---not tight as they are portrayed, just "careful" with their money---humorous and loving folk. Believe me, you would invite them home for dinner.
Now I note that Scottish products are suffering from the Lockerbie backlash. Walker's Shortbread, one of the world's fine cookies (or biscuits, as the Brits call them) and a popular seller in the U.S., is deeply concerned that sales are in danger of falling badly. Harris Tweed, one of the venerable great names in fabrics, is de-emphasizing the Scottish connotations and emphasizing its Hebrides Island heritage.
Well, I want to draw the line right here. If you think I am going to give up my favorite drink, Scotch whisky, you are out of your skull. For some things, a man has to make his stand. Any nation that can create a drink as good as Scotch has to have redeeming qualities.
So, let's not get carried away, America. This too shall pass...
Now it's Scotlands's turn. We have every reason to be incensed by the shabby Lockerbie affair in which England is deeply involved (or perhaps buried would be an apter choice of words). The Scots have in their laws a "compassionate" clause as well as no death penalty, so legally they were within their rights to free the bomber. But that does not excuse their bad judgment. They could have put him in a prison hospital in Scotland for his remaining time instead of sending him back to Libya, and nobody would have said a word. But we all know how oil and money and secret governmental deals created that shambles.
But let's say a few good words for the Scots. I admit a prejudice: my wife's maiden name was Scott, with English mother and Scottish father from near Glasgow (who spents most of his life in England). Also, on my mother's side, there's a lot of Scottish blood. In fact, her maiden surname, which is my first name, was Alexander.
Now that I've added this forewarning of my prejudices, let me say I have been to Scotland and know quite a few Scots, and they are usually wonderful people. As with any ethnic group, there are always a fair share of horsesasses, but, on the whole, they are generous---not tight as they are portrayed, just "careful" with their money---humorous and loving folk. Believe me, you would invite them home for dinner.
Now I note that Scottish products are suffering from the Lockerbie backlash. Walker's Shortbread, one of the world's fine cookies (or biscuits, as the Brits call them) and a popular seller in the U.S., is deeply concerned that sales are in danger of falling badly. Harris Tweed, one of the venerable great names in fabrics, is de-emphasizing the Scottish connotations and emphasizing its Hebrides Island heritage.
Well, I want to draw the line right here. If you think I am going to give up my favorite drink, Scotch whisky, you are out of your skull. For some things, a man has to make his stand. Any nation that can create a drink as good as Scotch has to have redeeming qualities.
So, let's not get carried away, America. This too shall pass...
Monday, September 7, 2009
IS THIS MY COUNTRY?
What the hell is going on in America since I left in late June? The Republican Party, who is currently making me ashamed that I ever associated myself with the G.O.P., has turned into a bunch of whiners and screamers, sniveling away at their loss of freedom and trampled rights. Now I read they are bitching about the idea of the President of the United States making a televised speech to the school children of America, which, they claim is "Big Brotherhood" with this looming sinister figure of the despot President interfering with their inalienable rights.
Let's get real, G.O.P. ultra-conservatives, what is so evil and criminal about the leader of our country talking to kids, as the President of the United States, about the opportunites education presents to them for their betterment and to contribute to the world? Is that sedition, for God's sake? And, as an Afro-American who worked hard for everything he has accomplished, isn't he uniquely qualified to talk to our kids on this important subject?
One of our major educational concerns in America has been the "dumbing down" of educational standards and the loss of quality in our schools. (The same problems are applicable here in U.K., I might add.) We should be delighted that the President of the United States of America has the interest and the concern to want to encourage the nurturing of education among our future citizens.
I am ashamed to learn that in Lee County where I live in America the major city, Fort Myers, banned the President's speech in schools. I find it humiliatingly ignorant that redneck ignorance prevails.
I also think the times we are in calls for a strong leader who is deeply concerned with the wellbeing of our children as well as the older generations. F.D.R. was hated by the Republicans during the depression when I was a kid, but very few people dispute today---even Republicans--- that his strong leadership was a major factor psychologically in overcoming the depression. Can any rational person question that we need a strong executive today?
Shame on you, ultra right-wingers. Why don't you come out FOR something... instead of always being ANTI something. Try to think about the good for the majority of people, just once. You might even learn to enjoy it.
Let's get real, G.O.P. ultra-conservatives, what is so evil and criminal about the leader of our country talking to kids, as the President of the United States, about the opportunites education presents to them for their betterment and to contribute to the world? Is that sedition, for God's sake? And, as an Afro-American who worked hard for everything he has accomplished, isn't he uniquely qualified to talk to our kids on this important subject?
One of our major educational concerns in America has been the "dumbing down" of educational standards and the loss of quality in our schools. (The same problems are applicable here in U.K., I might add.) We should be delighted that the President of the United States of America has the interest and the concern to want to encourage the nurturing of education among our future citizens.
I am ashamed to learn that in Lee County where I live in America the major city, Fort Myers, banned the President's speech in schools. I find it humiliatingly ignorant that redneck ignorance prevails.
I also think the times we are in calls for a strong leader who is deeply concerned with the wellbeing of our children as well as the older generations. F.D.R. was hated by the Republicans during the depression when I was a kid, but very few people dispute today---even Republicans--- that his strong leadership was a major factor psychologically in overcoming the depression. Can any rational person question that we need a strong executive today?
Shame on you, ultra right-wingers. Why don't you come out FOR something... instead of always being ANTI something. Try to think about the good for the majority of people, just once. You might even learn to enjoy it.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?
The Lockerbie shambles brings daily revelations, and the political posturing---and lying---just keeps rolling along, like Old Man River.
Jack Straw, the British Justice Secretary, who is a bit of a weasel, another Teflon politician who gets knocked down and then pops up again, admitted that trade considerations were an essential part of the prisoner transfer deal with Libya. DUH!!! Meanwhile, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, tap dances around the subject.
While up north, the M.S.P. (Members of the Scottish Parliament) by a vote of 73-50 rejected the Scottish government's decision to release the bomber. Of course, this is purely symbolic: the horse left the barn last month.
I commented in a blog a couple of weeks ago that oil and business make odd bedfellows when governmental interests are involved. You know very well that George W. and Dick Cheney were most aware of this fact in Iraq, so Britain is not the only guilty party to this type of hypocrisy.
The "special relationship" between U.K. and U.S.A. is severely stressed by this Lockerbie mess; however, I believe common interests will prevail and the principals will ride out the storm.
Sometimes I feel like Diogenes of ancient Greece, who went around with a lamp, looking for an honest man. Or politician, to be more specific...
Jack Straw, the British Justice Secretary, who is a bit of a weasel, another Teflon politician who gets knocked down and then pops up again, admitted that trade considerations were an essential part of the prisoner transfer deal with Libya. DUH!!! Meanwhile, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, tap dances around the subject.
While up north, the M.S.P. (Members of the Scottish Parliament) by a vote of 73-50 rejected the Scottish government's decision to release the bomber. Of course, this is purely symbolic: the horse left the barn last month.
I commented in a blog a couple of weeks ago that oil and business make odd bedfellows when governmental interests are involved. You know very well that George W. and Dick Cheney were most aware of this fact in Iraq, so Britain is not the only guilty party to this type of hypocrisy.
The "special relationship" between U.K. and U.S.A. is severely stressed by this Lockerbie mess; however, I believe common interests will prevail and the principals will ride out the storm.
Sometimes I feel like Diogenes of ancient Greece, who went around with a lamp, looking for an honest man. Or politician, to be more specific...
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
LET'S MAKE A DEAL.
The latest reassessment of the war in Afghanistan by the new commander, General Stanley McChrystal, is cause for sobering thought---if no real surprises. It has been apparent for some time that we are fighting a war with one hand tied behind our back with an elusive enemy that ducks back into a safe zone in Pakistan when the heat gets extreme and patiently waits its turn to strike back. Escalation of number of troops will be the next step. And the beat goes on…
I think General McChrystal is right in trying to limit civilian casualties and in seeking to “democratize” the people, but who are we kidding: so long as war lords hold sway and money is coined from the opium trade, we are always going to be limited in our success.
Several analysts here in Britain---and now add the name of the Foreign Secretary David Miliband---are pushing for trying to win over some of the local chieftains and war lords to cause a split in the Taliban’s efforts. This pragmatic approach of making deals with the local boys to create splits in the Taliban makes sense; it’s the old cliché: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Personally, I would enjoy seeing the Taliban fight among themselves. It’s worth checking out.
I think General McChrystal is right in trying to limit civilian casualties and in seeking to “democratize” the people, but who are we kidding: so long as war lords hold sway and money is coined from the opium trade, we are always going to be limited in our success.
Several analysts here in Britain---and now add the name of the Foreign Secretary David Miliband---are pushing for trying to win over some of the local chieftains and war lords to cause a split in the Taliban’s efforts. This pragmatic approach of making deals with the local boys to create splits in the Taliban makes sense; it’s the old cliché: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Personally, I would enjoy seeing the Taliban fight among themselves. It’s worth checking out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)