Last Thursday was Veteran's Day, aka Remembrance Day, and there was a parade in Leavenworth. Naturally we went along to see what was happening.
I think, retrospectively, the key word was probably involvement. I don't know how many people were watching the parade, but I'm pretty sure more people were in it than observing. There were the army types in their uniforms, followed by the ROTC (junior army, scarily young some of them), then the Brownies and the Scouts and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Mayor and the State Representative, then more Scouts, then the high school Marching Band, complete with cheerleaders, then more Scouts, then more veterans, then a couple of random people driving old cars, then some more cars with fat people waving from inside, then some more veterans, on a truck this time, then a helicopter being towed along on a float, then a Masonic Lodge or two, then the Daughters of Job (junior masons), more veterans, some horses and finally the Fort Leavenworth Hunt. The whole thing went on for several hours, in the cold, with lots of people waving and occasional cheers.
What amused me most was the homespun-ness of it all and also the number of people who felt the need to parade in cars. Surely the point of a parade is to sally forth on foot? Or perhaps on a float or maybe a horse, but just to drive very slowly, waving? It didn't seem very parade-like behaviour.
I also missed the solemness of the British remembrance spectacle, with its people in mourning colours wearing poppies and serious expressions, and the last post and the two minutes silence. Veterans Day here is much more of a celebration, and a chance for everyone to get stuck in. Apparently Armed Forces Day is the more solemn occasion here.
Nevertheless, the whole thing provided an amusing spectacle, and then we were able to go and warm up with beers and fajitas in the High Noon Saloon, which is always fun. Do post further thoughts on the nature of parading...
Monday, 15 November 2010
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Dyed in the Red
Today I woke up to a state that is completely controlled by the Republican party. GOP candidates have taken all the major seats in Kansas, from the US Senate seat to the various house districts.
When I got to the University this morning, most of my colleagues were sunk into deep gloom at the news. Although, as one of them pointed out, at least now nobody can blame the Democrats when things go wrong. And we all took comfort from the fact that, while Kansas might now be dyed deep red, at least Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate in Nevada who referred darkly to citizens making use of their Second Amendment rights, wa beaten by Harry Reid, the longstanding Democratic incumbent.
Nevertheless, it seems strange, in a state that is largely blue collar, working class or agricultural, that so many people vote to the right. After all, the Democrats are ostensibly the party of this demographic, and their policies reflect the desire to help those less well off, with healthcare reform, tax cuts and so on.
But Kansans also like to be left alone, and don't like the thought of their actions being controlled by Washington, hence their love of 'no more big government'. As Sam Brownback, the new Republican governor of Kansas put it, "no more Obama way; now to the Kansan way" - whatever that means.
I've basically realised I can't talk about politics any more, unless I am in the liberal oasis of the KU environs. This was perfectly illustrated by a conversation with a friend the other evening, who describes himself as a "libertarian" and says that if government backed off, we'd all be in a better place.
The irony is, he works for the US Army, perhaps the biggest government-controlled machine out there. The base budget for defence spending in America currently stands at $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion. That's 19% of the entire federal budget. In fact, it's one of the biggest single expenditures of the US government. Surely reducing government involvement would have to involve cutting defence spending somehow - and then where would all these libertarians be?
When I got to the University this morning, most of my colleagues were sunk into deep gloom at the news. Although, as one of them pointed out, at least now nobody can blame the Democrats when things go wrong. And we all took comfort from the fact that, while Kansas might now be dyed deep red, at least Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate in Nevada who referred darkly to citizens making use of their Second Amendment rights, wa beaten by Harry Reid, the longstanding Democratic incumbent.
Nevertheless, it seems strange, in a state that is largely blue collar, working class or agricultural, that so many people vote to the right. After all, the Democrats are ostensibly the party of this demographic, and their policies reflect the desire to help those less well off, with healthcare reform, tax cuts and so on.
But Kansans also like to be left alone, and don't like the thought of their actions being controlled by Washington, hence their love of 'no more big government'. As Sam Brownback, the new Republican governor of Kansas put it, "no more Obama way; now to the Kansan way" - whatever that means.
I've basically realised I can't talk about politics any more, unless I am in the liberal oasis of the KU environs. This was perfectly illustrated by a conversation with a friend the other evening, who describes himself as a "libertarian" and says that if government backed off, we'd all be in a better place.
The irony is, he works for the US Army, perhaps the biggest government-controlled machine out there. The base budget for defence spending in America currently stands at $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion. That's 19% of the entire federal budget. In fact, it's one of the biggest single expenditures of the US government. Surely reducing government involvement would have to involve cutting defence spending somehow - and then where would all these libertarians be?
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Leaves and things
I drove past a man today who was blowing leaves off his drive with one of those electric leaf-blowing things - the ones that look like vacuum cleaners but blow instead of suck. Anyway, he would patiently blow a pile of leaves off his driveway into a neat little pile - but the problem was, it was a windy day, and no sooner had he blown his pile into place than the wind would come and mess it all up. I never actually saw him do anything with the leaves, apart from push them around with his blowy thing. Meanwhile more leaves were coming down from the trees all the time because, as I said, it was a windy day. Apparently one of these leaf blower things emits as much energy in one year as 80 cars. Do these people have nothing better to do all day than blow leaves around and pollute the atmosphere while they're doing it? (and I know, I was driving a car when I saw him) Such is life in the suburbs of America.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Psychotic American Politics
A colleague said to me this morning, "I wish our right-wingers were more like British Tories." He has a point. Whether you're a fan of Cameron and his government or not, we remain relatively liberal in our politics in England - we may be carrying out one of the biggest slash and burn exercises in public sector jobs for a long time but our government and its acolytes does not exhort people to turn to guns to protect themselves, or rail publicly against homosexuality, or denounce those of the Jewish faith as "the antichrist".
Sadly this is not the case in America. The papers and airwaves have been full, recently, of the crazy things that politicians do to get themselves elected, in the run-up to the American midterms, where election fever has once again swept the country. Most of the press has focused on those extreme right-wing individuals who do and say ever-crazier things in the name of politics.
Take for example Carl Paladino, who is gunning for New York governor. He's the one who circulated an email with a photo of an African tribal ritual captioned 'Obama Inauguration Rehearsal'and who has attacked gays for supposedly brainwashing children. Or how about Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite in Delaware, who doesn't appear to realise that church and state are separate in the US, or another Tea Partier, Sharron Angle, the Nevada candidate, proposing that citizens consider "Second Amendment remedies" to "protect themselves against a tyrannical government." And let's not even get started on Sarah Palin.
OK, so these are extreme examples, but these are ELECTED people, for goodness sake. I read something recently which pointed out that the British public, for all its ostensible stupidity at times, is not completely without savvy when choosing its politicans. Most know which candidate is going to best for their constituency, and elect people who, on the whole, do an OK job. Admittedly we're in one of the worst recessions for decades, thanks largely to the last government, but let's face it, we all like to borrow money cheaply and spend beyond our means - it wasn't just them doing it.
But that's enough defence of Gordon Brown et al, the point is, deluded though they may have been, they weren't (I think), actual psychos. In America, most politicans seem to have a dangerously psychotic streak. At least that's what it appears every time I switch on the radio or the TV, where I see would-be leaders denouncing their opponents strategy, character and moral standing with all the dignity of a bully in a playground. It disgusts me - but what disgusts me more is that people are taken in by it - indeed they lap it up. Frank Rich (from whom I confess I stole many of the examples in this article) has written a very interesting piece on the whole thing in the New York Times, which you can read here. He says it better than I, but one thing Rich and I appear to agree on wholeheartedly: America is on a dangerous path if it continues in this way. Goodness knows what will happen next.
Sadly this is not the case in America. The papers and airwaves have been full, recently, of the crazy things that politicians do to get themselves elected, in the run-up to the American midterms, where election fever has once again swept the country. Most of the press has focused on those extreme right-wing individuals who do and say ever-crazier things in the name of politics.
Take for example Carl Paladino, who is gunning for New York governor. He's the one who circulated an email with a photo of an African tribal ritual captioned 'Obama Inauguration Rehearsal'and who has attacked gays for supposedly brainwashing children. Or how about Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite in Delaware, who doesn't appear to realise that church and state are separate in the US, or another Tea Partier, Sharron Angle, the Nevada candidate, proposing that citizens consider "Second Amendment remedies" to "protect themselves against a tyrannical government." And let's not even get started on Sarah Palin.
OK, so these are extreme examples, but these are ELECTED people, for goodness sake. I read something recently which pointed out that the British public, for all its ostensible stupidity at times, is not completely without savvy when choosing its politicans. Most know which candidate is going to best for their constituency, and elect people who, on the whole, do an OK job. Admittedly we're in one of the worst recessions for decades, thanks largely to the last government, but let's face it, we all like to borrow money cheaply and spend beyond our means - it wasn't just them doing it.
But that's enough defence of Gordon Brown et al, the point is, deluded though they may have been, they weren't (I think), actual psychos. In America, most politicans seem to have a dangerously psychotic streak. At least that's what it appears every time I switch on the radio or the TV, where I see would-be leaders denouncing their opponents strategy, character and moral standing with all the dignity of a bully in a playground. It disgusts me - but what disgusts me more is that people are taken in by it - indeed they lap it up. Frank Rich (from whom I confess I stole many of the examples in this article) has written a very interesting piece on the whole thing in the New York Times, which you can read here. He says it better than I, but one thing Rich and I appear to agree on wholeheartedly: America is on a dangerous path if it continues in this way. Goodness knows what will happen next.
Monday, 18 October 2010
Miami Beach
I went to Miami this weekend. It was so blissful: hot sun, palm trees, sea...
Admittedly Kansas is rather beautiful at the moment. The leaves are turning, the air has that glorious crispness to it and everything feels invigorating. But there was something rather lovely about being able to see the ocean, and not feeling totally trapped by land all around.
Plus, Miami is a very cool city. I don't know if I'm automatically predisposed to think everywhere else in America is cooler than Kansas (although it probably is), but Miami is especially rocking. I spent my first night there with some cousins; we cruised town in his 1978 Cadillac Eldorado before hitting the rooftop bar at the Gansevoort Hotel. Perfect.
The next day I chilled out on Miami beach, before hitting the road and driving down to Islamurada, in the Keys. Again, almost postcard-perfect, if you discount the sight of me in a bikini.
Could I actually live there? Well, yes probably. Ok, so it gets pretty hot in the summer, but you're on the coast, it's easier to fly to the UK, you can pop up to New York pretty easily, you get a great tan... And the people just seem to be a bit more on it than Kansans. They may not be as friendly, but they're bitchy, cool, smart and fun. Although I can't resist signing off with one particular comment which proves that even Floridians can be stupid - the conversation went a little like this:
Floridian: "So where would be your ultimate favourite place in the world - that you've been to or haven't been to."
Me: "Well, I've always wanted to go to India."
Floridian: "Oh no, you want to stay away from India. I mean, that's where the Taliban is, right?"
Admittedly Kansas is rather beautiful at the moment. The leaves are turning, the air has that glorious crispness to it and everything feels invigorating. But there was something rather lovely about being able to see the ocean, and not feeling totally trapped by land all around.
Plus, Miami is a very cool city. I don't know if I'm automatically predisposed to think everywhere else in America is cooler than Kansas (although it probably is), but Miami is especially rocking. I spent my first night there with some cousins; we cruised town in his 1978 Cadillac Eldorado before hitting the rooftop bar at the Gansevoort Hotel. Perfect.
The next day I chilled out on Miami beach, before hitting the road and driving down to Islamurada, in the Keys. Again, almost postcard-perfect, if you discount the sight of me in a bikini.
Could I actually live there? Well, yes probably. Ok, so it gets pretty hot in the summer, but you're on the coast, it's easier to fly to the UK, you can pop up to New York pretty easily, you get a great tan... And the people just seem to be a bit more on it than Kansans. They may not be as friendly, but they're bitchy, cool, smart and fun. Although I can't resist signing off with one particular comment which proves that even Floridians can be stupid - the conversation went a little like this:
Floridian: "So where would be your ultimate favourite place in the world - that you've been to or haven't been to."
Me: "Well, I've always wanted to go to India."
Floridian: "Oh no, you want to stay away from India. I mean, that's where the Taliban is, right?"
Thursday, 7 October 2010
On freedom of speech - again...
I've been thinking a lot about freedom of speech lately. Yesterday, the US Supreme Court began to hear Snyder vs. Phelps, a case which has raised the issue pretty starkly over here. Briefly, Fred Phelps runs a church here in Kansas, and organises his followers to picket military funerals with signs like 'God hates fags', 'Thank God for dead soldiers', 'Thank God for 9/11' etc. Pretty gruesome.
Anyway, four years ago, Phelps and his gang staged a protest in Maryland at the funeral of a Marine named Matthew A. Snyder - not gay himself, but Phelps et al basically do things like this because they think America supports homosexuality, especially in the military (hmmm - not sure about that one, given that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is still firmly in place, but that's another issue). Understandably, Matthew's father was pretty aggrieved at this, and he has brought a case against Phelps, claiming that he invaded his privacy. It's more intricate than that, but they're the basics. You can read more detail here.
Part of the reason this has caused such a huge furore is because it brings into question the very nature of America's constitution. The First Amendment, which is oretty much sacred over here, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There are those, in this case, who argue strongly in favour of Phelps and his right to freedom of speech - including many pretty major news organisations such as the New York Times, for example.
As I have said in this blog before, I'm not sure where one draws the line on this whole First Amendment thing. Then I was writing about Pastor Terry Jones and his proposed Koran burning on the anniversary of 9/11, now it's some psycho who thinks that picketing funerals is an acceptable thing to do. The attitude of both men disgusts me - that anyone, particularly someone calling himself a follower of Christ, thinks it is acceptable to behave in such a manner seems utterly unbelievable. But, freedom of speech - if you don't allow them to have their say, where do you draw the line?
I pondered the issue even more after reading a slightly out of date edition of the Spectator recently. This was the 'Thought Crime Special', which included various articles bemoaning the current state of affairs in Britain, where, at the other end of the spectrum, one can get the police turning up on your doorstep for merely asking whether they oould distribute Christian leaflets alongside a gay march. Which is better? I'm not sure. I, like many of the Spectator writers, despair of living in a country where so many things are now prosecutable, and agree with Matthew Parris, for example, that "without intensity or pasion, few great political or philosophical causes ever prevail." There is a place for righteous anger, I believe - as long as it does not descend into spittle-flecked, foaming-at-the-mouth, hatred-filled ranting.
But if you ban the latter, you come dangerously close to banning the former, and that is where the problem lies. Do I believe that people like Fred Phelps should be made to face up to the inestimable hurt and damage they have done to innocent people with their placarding? Yes. Do I, as Voltaire might have said, "defend to the death his right to say it"? Well, I'm not sure about defending to the death. And I'm not sure he should be allowed to say it in public. But, reluctantly, I have to agree that freedom of speech can't always be quantified. What the Supreme Court will decide remains to be seen.
Anyway, four years ago, Phelps and his gang staged a protest in Maryland at the funeral of a Marine named Matthew A. Snyder - not gay himself, but Phelps et al basically do things like this because they think America supports homosexuality, especially in the military (hmmm - not sure about that one, given that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is still firmly in place, but that's another issue). Understandably, Matthew's father was pretty aggrieved at this, and he has brought a case against Phelps, claiming that he invaded his privacy. It's more intricate than that, but they're the basics. You can read more detail here.
Part of the reason this has caused such a huge furore is because it brings into question the very nature of America's constitution. The First Amendment, which is oretty much sacred over here, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There are those, in this case, who argue strongly in favour of Phelps and his right to freedom of speech - including many pretty major news organisations such as the New York Times, for example.
As I have said in this blog before, I'm not sure where one draws the line on this whole First Amendment thing. Then I was writing about Pastor Terry Jones and his proposed Koran burning on the anniversary of 9/11, now it's some psycho who thinks that picketing funerals is an acceptable thing to do. The attitude of both men disgusts me - that anyone, particularly someone calling himself a follower of Christ, thinks it is acceptable to behave in such a manner seems utterly unbelievable. But, freedom of speech - if you don't allow them to have their say, where do you draw the line?
I pondered the issue even more after reading a slightly out of date edition of the Spectator recently. This was the 'Thought Crime Special', which included various articles bemoaning the current state of affairs in Britain, where, at the other end of the spectrum, one can get the police turning up on your doorstep for merely asking whether they oould distribute Christian leaflets alongside a gay march. Which is better? I'm not sure. I, like many of the Spectator writers, despair of living in a country where so many things are now prosecutable, and agree with Matthew Parris, for example, that "without intensity or pasion, few great political or philosophical causes ever prevail." There is a place for righteous anger, I believe - as long as it does not descend into spittle-flecked, foaming-at-the-mouth, hatred-filled ranting.
But if you ban the latter, you come dangerously close to banning the former, and that is where the problem lies. Do I believe that people like Fred Phelps should be made to face up to the inestimable hurt and damage they have done to innocent people with their placarding? Yes. Do I, as Voltaire might have said, "defend to the death his right to say it"? Well, I'm not sure about defending to the death. And I'm not sure he should be allowed to say it in public. But, reluctantly, I have to agree that freedom of speech can't always be quantified. What the Supreme Court will decide remains to be seen.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Do you have kids?
While I'm in a ranting mood, I might as well rant about another thing that particularly annoys me about the American psyche. Actually, I think it's specifically a Midwestern thing, and that is the assumptions that are made about children.
I recently met a (rather irritating) woman for the first time, who, after asking me whether I was married immediately followed it up with asking whether I had any children. No, I replied, whereupon she said "Are you planning any? Or have you decided no kids?" It was all I could do to smile politely and mutter something vague about not being entirely sure yet.
The fact of the matter is that I do want to have children, and hopefully in the next few years, but I find the outright questioning on the matter from complete strangers the ultimate in rudeness. I know it's meant as just an interested form of conversation, but for all this woman knew I could have been trying to have children for years, or I could have recently found out that I can't have children, or I might have just suffered a miscarriage.
What's more, when I gave my vague answer she went off onto a spiel about how if I wanted them, I really shouldn't wait too long, fertility rates being what they are. Now this REALLY gets my goat - I am perfectly aware that fertility drops off after 35, but quite frankly I don't feel it necessary to discuss (or defend) my childbearing plans with people who merely epxress an interest. Family planning is exactly that - family only, which means me and the Major in my book, or perhaps a couple of close friends to whom I might confess certain hopes and dreams. Basically lady, it's none of your f-ing business.
I recently met a (rather irritating) woman for the first time, who, after asking me whether I was married immediately followed it up with asking whether I had any children. No, I replied, whereupon she said "Are you planning any? Or have you decided no kids?" It was all I could do to smile politely and mutter something vague about not being entirely sure yet.
The fact of the matter is that I do want to have children, and hopefully in the next few years, but I find the outright questioning on the matter from complete strangers the ultimate in rudeness. I know it's meant as just an interested form of conversation, but for all this woman knew I could have been trying to have children for years, or I could have recently found out that I can't have children, or I might have just suffered a miscarriage.
What's more, when I gave my vague answer she went off onto a spiel about how if I wanted them, I really shouldn't wait too long, fertility rates being what they are. Now this REALLY gets my goat - I am perfectly aware that fertility drops off after 35, but quite frankly I don't feel it necessary to discuss (or defend) my childbearing plans with people who merely epxress an interest. Family planning is exactly that - family only, which means me and the Major in my book, or perhaps a couple of close friends to whom I might confess certain hopes and dreams. Basically lady, it's none of your f-ing business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
