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!"

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!

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...

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.

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...

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.

THE DEATH OF A LION

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

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.