Main | September 2005 »

Take him out! ... to the ballgame?

American Televangelism is viewed with misgiving in Britain in many circles. While religious mores are a factor in many Briton’s lives, it is certainly not to the extent we see it here in America. There are no British Televangelists; or at least, none I can think of, and I can rattle off Robertson, Falwell, and company quite easily, despite rarely seeing their programming. It would be strange to think of a British Televangelist, exhorting the faithful in a broad Cockney accent (‘ee said, luv thy naybah as ya do yaself, right? Gor, blimey. Jesus wos a propa toff, an’ no mistake!’). A smooth Southern lilt seems almost a prerequisite for such a task.

All this came to mind as I was reading the latest comments by the redoubtable Pat Robertson. I got to thinking about it because the general reaction to Pat’s advice on dealing with President Hugo Chavez (namely, ‘take him out’) was varied across the spectrum. Predictably, on the left came calls for censure, and in some cases, criminal charges. On the right, however, there was surprisingly little official commentary; and by that, I mean from the level of the White House. Various Senators and Religious figures from the left and the right of course condemned the remarks, but in some cases, in curiously soft language. For example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said “He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.”

This is, of course true, and if you go to any bar (or blog), you’ll be subject to people ranting off on various topics. Freedom of speech is vitally important, now more than ever. The one small problem, though, is that the right to freedom of speech usually abrubtly terminates (no pun intended) at the point the person giving the speech starts calling for bodily harm against a person or persons. Sometimes one can get away with this - I doubt anyone would be castigated for saying on live television that Osama Bin Laden should be killed rather than captured - but in the case where one threatens the head of State of a nominally friendly country, well, things tend to get a little more interesting.

John Dean, former counsel to the President, wrote a very interesting article on the whole affair that brought up the not-insignificant point that there are explicit laws on the books prohibiting casual death threats against foreign officials. Mind you, if it was seriously enforced, I think a lot of lawmakers would have been charged over the years. Nobody really expects Pat to get charged with anything - it’s only crazy Pat, after all - but I do find myself wondering how great the outcry would have been if the commentary had come from the left and not the right. It also worries me that there was no condemnation from higher in the ranks; no matter what your political stripes, calling for violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders is not something that is supposed to be accepted in this day and age (to say nothing of the morality of the thing).

That’s the rub, you see; Chavez did not come to power in a coup, unlike many in Latin America (for example, Manuel Noriega, erstwhile CIA employee and U.S. ally until he got too big for his boots). This was not for lack of trying, however. Chavez was involved in not one, but two coup attempts himself in the early 1990s. Having foresworn such tactics in favor of the ballot box, he came to power in 1998 with a strong socialist agenda - naturally arousing deep suspicion in the United States. Up until then, Venezuela had been largely the province of two political parties. Chavez won this election with the largest percentage of the vote (over 55 percent) in forty years of elections in that country. He fought off a coup attempt himself in 2002, in which the U.S. was implicated; the level of involvement, if any, has yet to be proven, though the Guardian newspaper reported some interesting allegations at the time. The US Government seemed to welcome the coup – which would have been the first successful coup in Venezuela overthrowing a democratically elected leader. In addition, the US press made some interesting noises for and against the coup as it unfolded.

All this notwithstanding, Chavez is by no means perfect. He’s a strong supporter of Fidel Castro, hardly a beacon of democratic rule, and has made a point of visiting or being visited by other States generally held hostile to U.S. interests. At the last count, though, he enjoys poll numbers in the 70% - would that George had those numbers! - and seems to have effectively tapped into a groundswell opinion against perceived U.S. meddling in Latin American affairs. Unfortunately for those who dislike him, he seems to be in a stronger position than ever leading into his next election, and with the energy situation being what it is, the U.S. can ill-afford supply disruptions that may accompany any upheaval in the domestic Venezuela political situation. Fortunately for that, Chavez is unlikely to shut off the pumps - not with oil about to top $70 a barrel as a result of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the Gulf Coast.

Into this delicate picture comes Pat, talking conspiracy and urging assassination. If ever there was a bull in the china shop, he seems to fit the bill. While calling for the imminent sickness of Supreme Court Judges or warning Florida against gay pride rallies in case they get hurricanes is one thing, battering at an already fragile diplomatic relationship with a vital partner in the region (whether or not the Administration -likes- him) can’t lead to a good outcome. You’re not ‘just a private citizen’ if you have your own television show with a million viewers.

Still, at least it makes for good theater. I’m waiting with interest to find out why Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans; I presume Pat will reveal that God did not approve of young women lifting their shirts for beads.

Posted by union_jack at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

But what are the late fees?

As a child, I was always a pretty heavy user of the library. When you can't play sports, didn't have a computer (in them days, when you had to dodge dinosaurs on the walk to school), and your mum won't let you have a television in your room in case the BBC sneaked a nipple past the censor, the library is always a good fallback. Some of those books can be quite steam-filled, and there's always the National Geographic back catalog. As a growing lad, I needed all the stimulus I could get.

Which is not to say this is the only function libraries serve. They're air conditioned, warm in winter, and you can go in to watch the old age pensioners squabbling with each other over who gets to read the Times first. Or in these brave new First-Amendment protected days, you get to see who gets to browse the XXX-Octogenarian websites first.

I had about five library cards (the 'standard' amount was two, but I begged) and thus, had many books in play at any given time. I'd go through phases; Westerns, Science Fiction, Fantasy, an occasional delving into more cerebral stuff, but for the most part, I knew what I liked and stuck with it. The library was a great way of getting to read otherwise pretty expensive books, and also reading a book I wouldn't have spent money on - far more likely to try a new author for free than pay for the privilege, miser that I am. In particular those Fantasy authors. There's some sort of secret rule to the Fantasy genre; make the books thick, make 'em generic, and make 'em often. It's not REAL fantasy unless the book you're reading has a bikini clad maiden on the front, some sort of roman numeral, and a subheader of 'Book 94 of the Interminable Wizard series'. If there's a congratulatory quote on the front page by some other Fantasy author, so much the better.

But I ramble. To summarize : Libraries are good. This brings me to a very interesting social experiment being run by the City of Malmo in Malmo, Sweden. They call it the Living Library project. It entails members of the public being able to 'borrow' another person for the opportunity to converse with them. The underlying goal is to confront prejudice and ignorance. In their first run, they'll have an Imam, a Gypsy, a Journalist, an Animal Rights activist, a member of the Gay community, and others.

While it occurs to me that those most likely to benefit from such exposure are least likely to avail themselves of the chance to do so, it still seems pretty neat. Perhaps a Library in these parts might consider something similar. Wouldn't you like the chance to sit down with somebody and get a few answers to all those questions you wanted to ask but never dared?

Republicans could chat with Liberals and find common ground! (Yes, there IS common ground).

Shiftless teenager bums could talk to cranky old people!

Christians could talk to Muslims!

Red Sox fans could talk to Yank-- well, let's not get carried away. Baby steps.

Posted by union_jack at 08:16 PM | Comments (0)

We have the right to arm bears!

Guns! Guns, guns, guns. America has an ongoing love affair with guns. I have an insidious fascination with them, myself. Sure, they're lethal. But so is a tire iron, when used correctly. And there's just something about a gun! I can identify quite a few by look alone, thanks to my extensive martial prowess in videogames. I'm a crack shot with a plasma cannon, let me tell you. As soon as Smith and Wesson come out with a gun that can be controlled with a computer mouse and keyboard, I'm so there. Woe betide the burglar who comes calling. As long as they give me time to boot up my gun first.

In Britain, guns are fairly hard to get a hold of. For a while, they were the province of the sporting and target shooting set, but then there was the massacre at Dunblane Primary School in 1996. Thomas Hamilton killed a teacher and fifteen children with a 9mm pistol in the space of about five minutes.

It was largely this event that lead to, for all intents and purposes, banning of handguns and shotguns in Britain. Farmers and other landworkers are permitted shotguns (not pump action) for pest control, and as a member of an approved Gun Club, you can own a .22 target pistol or rifle - which must be kept on the premises of the Gun club at all times. Home storage of weapons is forbidden. Dunblane was a watershed moment for gun ownership (limited as it was) in the UK.

Where am I going with this? Well, it's just a bit of perspective on how things are done where I comes from, bringing me onto the news that the National Rifle Association is organizing a boycott against Conoco for banning employees from carrying weapons onto Company property - more specifically, storing firearms in a vehicle which is parked in the company parking lot. The NRA feels that this is a naked assault on the Second Amendment, of course. Anyhoo, it's headed to court, with Conoco filing a Federal Lawsuit to block an Oklahoma State law that permits citizens to store firearms in their private vehicle while on company property.

Me, I'm awaiting the court case with gleeful interest. See, on the one hand, you have the Gun Lobby. They're Republican favorites, of course, and view any attempt to regulate, say, .50 caliber sniper rifles that can take out a police helicopter, as just plain un-American and the slippery slide on the road to Commies on the White House lawn. (I'm waiting to hear Wayne LaPierre stand up and explain to the American public why NRA members REALLY NEED crew served 105 mm artillery weapons to hunt deer).

On the other side, you have Conoco! An Oil Company! And unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know of the close ties of the current Administration to big oil. They love their oil companies, yesirree. And the Administration are firm believers in 'small government' - that is to say, less regulation, let businesses get on with building America, and all that noble stuff.

But now, one side will have to give. Will it be the NRA? Will the Court be persuaded that the dangers of workplace violence and disgruntled employees outweighs the individual liberty of a gun owner to carry a weapon on private land?

Or will it be the corporation? Will they be regulated by a cruel, unthinking Administration that not only forces them to accept lethal weapons on their property - but lets them be criminally liable if a worker did in fact unload their M-4 into a boardroom?

I bet the lawyers are drooling. This one has appeal and counter appeal written all over it. Get those billable hours crankin'.

Posted by union_jack at 09:20 AM | Comments (2)

About this Blog

Have you ever lived and worked abroad? How did you adjust to it? Did you blend into the local scene, or stick to your roots? And how did you get along with the natives?

America is a unique country. In fact it's many countries, all squished up, in some respects. If you've wondered how America is seen through the eyes of those on the outside, here's your chance to get at least one guy's opinions. I'm a British national, and have been living and working in Portsmouth for six years now.

With an an unhealthy interest in news in all its forms, Union Jack will always have something to say on current events around the world and here on the Seacoast. Sometimes my views lead to people looking at things in a different way! Sometimes they just punch me.

Union Jack covers politics, religion, strange news, technology, lifestyles, and most everything else, with a decidedly scumbag leftie Euro-trash slant. Occasionally, it might entertain you in the process, or at the very least, give you something to argue about.

Comments, ideas for topics, flames, gifts, all welcome at seacoast_unionjack@yahoo.com.

Posted by union_jack at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)