Innoculating British Christians against USAmerican rightist ambitions

I just read this:

Franklin Graham invested $10 million of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s money in his 2016 Decision America Tour to each state house in the country. Billed as “nonpartisan” prayer rallies, these gatherings framed the “moral crisis” as a decision between progressive atheist values and God. After the election, Graham called Trump’s victory an answer to prayer. 

The reason I'm concerned is that about 2 years ago, we nearly had a BGEA tour of the UK headed up by Franklin Graham. I was concerned at the time and this has made me more so. I was concerned that Graham was at least as much about networking so-called Christian right personnel with British Evangelicals with a view to creating a bridge-head to amplify an approach to values consonant with the USAmerican right-wing agenda. I wondered whether I was being too 'conspiracy theorist', but now reading this, I'm minded to think it would be precisely that bridgehead-building.

The article goes on to say this:

Today these influences — the Christian and religious nationalist organizations, religious capitalist and prosperity gospel movements, and independent charismatics — have access to the current administration in the form of its “court evangelicals.” The Values Voter Summit has become an important focus point for this coalition and its narrative. Through federal contracts and student aid, Liberty University has become the largest private Christian university in the country 

I'm thinking, having thought over the last 5 years in British politics, and recalling things I've read about the increasing reach of the American right into funding campaigns in Europe and further afield, that this is precisely an aim of Graham's deployment of the BGEA in this way. I think that they see an opportunity to leverage the current situation to build a stable if smaller base of right-wing support using somewhat Christian themes in the way they have in the USA.

As such I think that we need to be moving away from naivety in British Christian, especially evangelical and charismatic circles. We need to be in a position to resist Graham's next overtures. I'm pretty sure they will come once the dust is settling after the pandemic emergency.

So, my question is what do we need to do now to enable British evangelicals in particular to see through the rhetoric to the political agenda? To understand that this isn't the relatively benign BGEA of the 1980s and '90s but rather a vehicle for right-wing agendas which would struggle to answer 'WWJD' with responses that weren't more like responses to 'WWCD' (what would Caesar do?). There are UK evangelicals and charismatics who would covet the 'court evangelical' role, how do we pre-empt that? How do we innoculate against the cunning use of single issues to marginalise more Godly values (check out here for further reflection). It is a characteristic of some of the Pharisaism that Jesus criticised -maybe that's the way to pursue? (WWPD? -what would Pharisees do?)

My hope in this is that it seems that British Evangelicalism has tended to be more focused on justice and mercy than the USAmerican counterpart. I hope I'm not wrong in that, and I hope it is not too shallowly rooted.

This is going to be occupying some of my prayer-time for weeks or months to come.

And for the record, I think that such cynical usage of evangelism and co-option of the good will of those concerned for sharing the Good News of Jesus is despicable. If this is what Mr Graham is doing (and it does look likely given the history) then I think that puts him and those others who do it in the place of those pharisees and sadducees whom Jesus laid into for misleading the poor and the seeking. At the best they may be acting the part of 'useful idiots' at worst ... shudder ...

Source for initiating quotes: Our Demands – Poor People's Campaign:

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action

This is a book that reads like a PhD thesis which has been slightly redacted for more public consumption. As such, it is not a book that many will find easy going: it has a lot of detail; it is extensively end-noted; there is a good amount of presentation of texts and commentary on them. The texts, in this case, are mostly transcripts or the written basis of spoken prayers or of speeches.

I was disappointed that the pdf copy I have had not been properly prepped for reading in this way: the footnotes were not hyperlinked between the main text and the footnote. I hope that this might be fixed in any other e-versions that might be released.

I have to say that one of the effects on me of reading this book was that I became more deeply concerned and at times scared by what I was reading. That may sound a bit dramatic and it would do so particularly to many readers who might be from the USA. And there is a degree of irony in that since we are considering a nation in which the separation of Church and state is highly valued constitutionally enshrined. And yet, this book seems to show that this separation seems to be less in some respects than in Britain where we have, in theory, an established church. My fear at reading the research in this book is for the way that USAmerican influence might be prodded and pushed along by a form of religion which is not good for the global community (let alone for its host nation).

The form of religion which I saw as I read the research presented in this book is one in which the global dominance of the USA is pretty much equated with the will of God. It reminded me so much of how Victorian England seems to have viewed itself (and now we are beginning to understand the history better we can see more readily how much Godly values were betrayed by that empire). I don't think I'd truly grasped the depth of popular USAmerican exceptionalism until I read the way that public prayers in The USA assume and promote that the Kingdom of God is pretty much co-terminous with USAmerican interests. Of course, there is, for many on the political right there, a contradiction -given the vehemence with which liberal values are attacked as ungodly- when a Democratic regime is in power. This contradiction, is in practice resorved by the fact that in foreign policy terms, a Democratic regime is scarcely any different. Just as in the British Empire, it seemed to make little difference whether Whigs or Tories were running the government: military power continued to be used worldwide to asset-strip and terrorise colonies and trading 'partners'.

This poisonous mix of religion (and not just formally Christian, either) and chauvinism is seen expressed and assumed in prayers and rhetoric. And for the rest of us it is deeply scary and gives no real sense of benevolence to the rest of the world; so we have to live with edgy appeasement or fearful opposition. here is Empire and the Constantinian settlement is alive and well. The problem is, we are the barbarians in this way of looking at the world.

There is some let up from the mostly disturbing and grim picture revealed. Some of the confluence of prayer and politics shows those with concern for the marginalised, poor and for respite from violence and militarism enacting their prayers also into public space. But, of course, that happens to fit my own understanding of Godly values. I keep hearing in my mind's ear one of Cromwell's better insights expressed thus: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, to think that you could be wrong". This exposes the biggest problem of all in so much of what the research shows up: the lack of humility to consider that we may have insights and something of the mind of Christ to learn from those we consider or have presented to us as 'enemies'.

I kept longing for the prayers to show some recognition that the prayists might have misunderstood God's will or that some insight into God's purposes might be gleaned from people who take a different view and therefore to pursue some kind of consensus building approaches. Instead so many of the prayers were, in effect, a presentation before God of the dialogue of the close-minded.

Of course, God is not the only audience and on page 46 (electronically. p.35 otherwise) a helpful reminder is given:

"all public prayer contains an important difference from that of private prayer: the addition of a public audience. Even in the case of someone praying/speaking in tongues (that is, speaking in sounds not understandable by the speaker or even other people present), such rhetoric cannot be considered as only for the divine"

I think that this is an important thing to remember and is a matter I am currently reflecting on as I write Hacking the Prayer Meeting (if that's what it ends up being called): noting that we have to pay attention to the social effects and reception of acts of praying within and beyond a prayer meeting. Sacramental Politics is doing us a service by reminding us that such a reception has, necessarily, political effects and even Political heft.

Quibbles

On p.21, we're informed: 'For faithful Catholics, transubstantiation does not occur gradually or as a process; rather, it occurs instantaneously when the priest utters the “Words of Initiation.”' Of course, there's a typo there or a lapse of the keyboard: these are the words of "Institution".

Then, next sentence, we're also told 'The priest speaks into existencethe transformation by saying “this is my body” (for the bread) and “this is ...my blood” for the wine. Without these words spoken, transubstantiation does not occur.' There are two problems with this, and I have chatted with Roman Catholic priests who confirm the points I'm about to make. First, we should be aware that transubstantiation isn't a dogma in the RC doctrinal framework, merely one way to express and defend the assertion of the Real Presence. The other point is that in official RC theology, the words of institution do not constitute transubstantiation or make the Presence of Christ real. The reason for this is that there is an eastern rite church in communion with the Bishop of Rome which has a Eucharistic prayer in which there is no narrative or words of institution. This church's prayer is considered to be Catholic by the Roman Church. But this really is only a quibble in this context, since the main point is unaffected by it.


Link-Love: 
Brian Kaylor's website
Brian on Twitter
Brian on Facebook
Brian- Linkedin
Sacramental Politics - Amazon

#SpeakeasySacramentalPolitics
I should point out that I received an electronic copy of this book via Speakeasy in return for agreeing to post a review within 30 days. The review need not be favourable.

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action (Frontiers in Political Communication): Amazon.co.uk: Brian Kaylor: 9781433126154: Books

All Give and No Take -the dangers of TTIP

 On the basis of this article: All Give and No Take | George Monbiot.

On the basis of it I have just written to my MP. You might do the same, perhaps.

I was pleased to receive your response to my concerns
about TTIP and to learn that you share something of my concern. I would
also not wish to lightly turn down a potentially large amount of
investment and income for British industry and commerce. I am also
pleased to know that you are concerned enough to keep a watch on the
process and its outcomes. However, I remain a little concerned and would
like to mention to you a more precise concern which I didn't think I
saw represented in your response. I hope you'll feel able to comment
further and perhaps reassure me about your own concerns with the TTIP
negotiations.



My concerns arise from the investigations of George Monbiot
(reported here )
in which he says "The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the
insistence on both sides
on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)(10).

ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration
panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into
other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down
laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes;
tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and
public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground" This forms
the heart of my concern as it seems to form an effective trump card for
corporations over democratic governments who may wish to steer away from
a corporatist interpretation of neo-liberalism (a kind of government I
would like to help to elect, in fact).



Monbiot goes on to question the value of a clause/section designed
for situations where the rule of law might be inconstant: "what is it
doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK
government found that ISDS “is highly unlikely to encourage investment”
and is “likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”(15)
But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the
living daylights out of governments that stand in their way."



My concern is for proper democratic scrutiny of the TTIP and I
support Monbiot's proposals for that: (1) all negotiating positions, on
both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled.

(2) every chapter of the agreement [sh]ould be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament.

(3) TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered

I wonder whether you would be prepared to help press those propositions upon the negotiators?

Mitt Romney: don't be surprised

Dear Mr Romney,
If you were ever to read this I'd hope you'd get an inkling of why it is that in a recent poll it would seem that your candidacy for the USA's presidency was seen in most countries to be a bad thing. You see, what we see of GOP politics is frankly scary to the rest of the planet. And the reason for that is partly to be gleaned form USA's domestic political trends.

I recently read this, a report of your explanation to your supporters for your non-election:

Obama, Romney argued, had been "very generous" to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration's plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents' insurance plans well into their 20s. Free contraception coverage under Obama's healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-aged women to back the president.

You see, there's a kind of blindness in this: if I may put it this way: it's a case of pot calling kettle black. It seems disingenuous to complain that another candidate has made life better for certain groups when your own professed policies are to make life better for another constellation of interest groups. The more so when those you seek to enrich already have so much that they can throw large amounts of money at your campaign in hopes of continued support of their own particular 'welfare' projects (corporate bail-outs and protectionism).

If you don't get it that you should be aiming to govern for the many and not just the few, then you are pretty much bound to fail. If you don't care about the majority and you let it be seen that this is so, then don't be surprised if most of them decide not to vote for their own impoverishment in favour of enriching your friends. The only real suprise about the result from the point of view of the rest of the world, is that is was so close. The real puzzler for most of us is how so many USAmericans have become so persuaded to vote against their own interests.

And while we're on the subject: is there any real evidence that trickle-down economics actually works?
I think you'll find there isn't any credible evidence.

Mitt Romney blames election loss on 'gifts' Obama gave to minority groups | World news | guardian.co.uk:

New Evangelical Manifesto [4] theology into the world

Paul Markham writes a chapter entitled A Theology that 'works'. For him the chapter has an existential origin in the sense of not really 'fitting' in Evangelical circles and discovering he was not as alone as he had thought. He also notes that 'new Evangelical' is not a self-designation for most of the people the label is designed to designate: these are people who tend to resist labelling.

Markham outlines a characteristic of New Evangelicals as 'having a Kingdom vision for the common good'. In fact he identifies striving for social justice as the unifying characteristic of the group and that it is a spiritual issue. Furthermore, they (we) are willing to engage in partnership for the common good which implies with people of good will beyond the Christian faith. More than this, such partnerships are  most likely to be 'grassroots' -what I would probably call 'bottom-up' and 'self-organisinng'.

What I found intriguing was linking this with the story of Nehemiah: noting that Nehemiah did not do the SMART planning thing but rather empowered and encouraged people to work together and to do their bit and in so doing to discover their community with one another. He doesn't mention the word 'emergent' or 'emerging' -but here it lurks close behind and so exposes why those terms have had saliency.

I loved this phrase: 'empowering communities to become co-creators of the world not merely consumers of it'. Just so, and I think that the co-creator theme is actually also important, in fact characterising. Related to this is the phrase 'the Commonwealth of God'.

The bottom up approach to action is mirrored by a bottom up approach to theology: rather than starting with the theory and methodology from first principles, let the action open up the imaginative space to understand better and more fully both what is going on and what the theology is. A willingness to "start in the middle" and trust that clarity can emerge is another characteristic.

I found this chapter helpful, because it has a real sense of laying bare some important dynamics of what is happening. The odd thing is that it doesn't quite name them or join them altogether and the word 'emerging' -which would do the latter- only occurs right at the end and not in that way. But it is that word that captures and pulls together the phenomena being identified and furthermore explains the occurrence of the word for at least some 'new Evangelicals'.

In the next chapter, Glen Harold Stassen writes about Kingdom discipleship as being God's vision for the Church. The diagnosis here is that many churches separate Jesus as personal saviour from Jesus the one who calls us to be disciples -following his teaching and example. Furthermore he notes that in practice Christologies that are docetic or gnostic inform their thinking. I think I'd say that monophysite ought to get a look in and perhaps not so much gnostic. Whatever the analysis, the point Stassen is making is that 'conversion' is important.

He mentions too the importance of an incarnational approach by which he means 'entering into the lives of others different from ourselves' (p.66) in a costly way; it's actually an 'incarnational solidarity' especially with the poor. This requires a 'participatory' 'christomorphic' grace; that is to say a recognition that God gives us grace to work with God and that it is a grace that forms us into the image of Christ. He notes that such a grace challenges our culture's relegation of faith matters to the private sphere. And this means, I would say, that his next point is a logical outcome; justice is something not merely about secular authority but something that our faith asserts and looks to find mirrored in the public sphere. Stassen mentions then that prayer is an important lesson from the lives and ministries of Bonhoeffer and MLK. He rightly notes the mismatch between the agenda of the right in the USA which seems to draw from Ayn Rand and, on the other hand, the teaching of Jesus. It is good to know that Stassen detects signs that megachurch leaders are choosing the latter rather than the former to help form their view of faithful Christian living where it impinges on the public sphere.

If I have a concern about Stassen's article it is about the centrality of conversion. I have a phobia about that word. I have a conversion story myself, so it's not a 'phobia' rooted in lack of experience or envy. Rather my concern is twofold. One aspect is knowing people who find it difficult to say they had a conversion because they cannot recall a time when they didn't have a real sense of God's involvement in their life and living formed by Christ. Another aspect is the way that that conversion becomes a procrustean bed forcing people to tell their stories in a certain kind of way, including distorting them by removing aspects that don't work so well and heightening or re-interpreting events to provide the required fit with the canonical story-arcs. One of the ironies of this is that when I deal with evangelical youth, I discover most of them are the products of Christian homes and their 'conversions' are arguably more about transition to adulthood  and integrating their faith in that. That's not to deny there is an element of commitment (or recommitment), but it is to note that there is a huge amount of cultural interpretation and translation going on.

To be more positive and to step back from projecting my hot-button reaction onto the article; I think that he actually means that we have an identity which is founded in Christ rather than social or political loyalties. But the danger is of using a word like this where certain connotative meanings are so prevalent. I suspect that its use is a kind of shibboleth; I can't decide whether it is well or ill to pander to the apparent need for it.

New Evangelical Manifesto [3] -Cizik changes his mind

For those of us who aren't USAmerican Evangelicals, Richard Cizik had worked for a number of years for the National Association of Evangelicals until he was resigned (just so: sometimes a resignation is not freely offered but coerced) because of remarks he made on a radio show. This prompts a reflection on changing ones mind. His remarks were that he could support gay unions and government funded contraception as a way to avoid abortion. He was also suspected of voting for Barack Obama and had been talking about the need to embrace the climate change issue but not as denialists.

This resignation led to him being dropped from other organisations and speaking engagements and to numbers of former colleagues and 'friends' ceasing to be in contact. He reflects that although he got support from a number of people, most Evangelicals who dissent over political matters with the party line have little or no support and face a lonely time. Cizik notes that Putnam -a sociologist- thinks that there is evidence that USA Evangelicals choose their church by its politics not its theology. Cizik argues that this points up the problem for USA Evangelicalism: it has been captured by conservative politics and the Gospel has been made subservient to that.

From this background he develops ideas about what  'new Evangelicals' might be. He notes the word traces back to 'good news' and feels that USA Evangelicals have become bad news, noting that they have become marked by being against things: anti liberal; anti-social gospel; anti-communist; anti trends. In doing so, the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater.

Cizik sees the 'new' bit of 'new Evangelicals as, firstly, a concern for building bridges beyond narrow sectarian boundaries -such as with scientists over climate change.  Secondly it's about not politicising the church. This is about engaging for the common good. I think he means by 'politicisation' what I might call 'becoming party political': I make this distinction because, in the end, 'political' is pretty much everything that we do in the public arena; the difficulty is when particular party disciplines, lines and loyalties are invoked to the detriment of building bridges and trying to identify commonalities -which is the political in the sense of 'the art of the possible'.

The fact that many USAmerican Evangelicals might label these characteristics as 'heretical' is a sad indictment of the party-political captivity of USA Evangelicalism. And this hurts us all: if I identify as Evangelical, I have to spend time explaining that this is not a cipher for USAmerican political nastiness (because that's what most people I interact with in GB think it is -rather like many Brits think the Conservative Party has a tendency to be the 'nasty people's party' because of the self-righteous, selfish and uncaring attitudes of its members).

And the 'nasty people's party' epithet is not irrelevant: Cizik's own experience is of being on the receiving end of personal attacks -not to mince words; unloving attitudes and hateful behaviour. The unrepentant unchristliness of those who are supposed to represent Christ is deeply hurtful and offensive.  Cizik spends some wordage explaining his thinking and the actualities of his positions and it is revealing, not least as it uncovers the actual disagreements of sections of the Evangelical community in the USA with the [tea-] party-political 'official' line; Latinos, African-American and often younger Evangelicals are likely not to sit square -or even comfortably- with some (or more) of the agenda.

This article is a cri de coeur for religious liberty and a proper separation of church and state: ironic given USAmerican history and foundations. Odd and disturbing that Evagelicals of the USA should so desire a Christendom model and to act in ways that are decried when they proceed from papacy.

The important remedy he identifies is that space must be created for people to be heard: for Evangelicals to dissent from the 'party-line' and to raise their concerns coupled with a willingness to be corrected. Of course the implication is that it also needs to create a space for people to change their minds; something that is excoriated in the political sphere. Surely a Christian public discourse should count on the need to repent -literally to change ones mind and more than that; to celebrate it.

Evangelicals -wrong on the Bible. [New Evangelical Manifesto 2]

Cheryl Bridges Johns in the third article (A Disenchanted Text; where Evangelicals went wrong with the Bible) starts with the alleged (and I happen to think it likely to be true) decline of Bible understanding and knowledge in the USA -including among Evangelicals. I say 'alleged' because it was reasonably unsubstantiated and I'd have like to have seen some kind of references to research (ditto with some of Brian McLaren's -though it that instance I have seen the research so didn't feel the need for referencing so strongly. Presumably part of the editorial policy).

The sting is not in the tail but near the start: "The problem does not lie primarily with people who do not read the Bible. It rests with the way that Evangelicals read the Bible." Both sting and thesis. This is linked to Weber's reading of western history since the Enlightenment as 'disenchantment' -a disenchantment which affected the way also that the Bible was received. In response some asserted that the Bible would be seen to be scientifically valid and worked up a theory of inspiration to match. However, asserts Bridges Johns, this move gave rise to a kind of Deist Bible (that's my characterisation phrase, not hers, though I think it represents her idea) where God was present at its creation but not particularly active in its reading. This was linked with a dispensationalist approach which systematically removed miracle from the post-apostolic ages. Thus reading the Bible became a rational exercise. Ironically, in effect, a rather low view of scripture and a high view of reason. This modernist view and usage of scripture has characterised Evangelicalism ever since.

So when younger generations become 'disenchanted' with the culture and culture wars, they may consider the Bible to be part of the problem or they may simply not know how to make use of it. This points to a need not to 'go back to the Bible' but to get back 'to the God in the Bible' and this entails a re-conceiving of our view of Scripture.

This view resists seeing Scripture as a set of propositional texts but rather as a teaching and community-forming text. Bridges Johns several times writes about recovering the Bible as "Holy Scripture". To do that would mean allowing it to deconstruct the readers; to challenge identity and re-form it rather than simply to bolster it. What is needed is a properly Pentecostal appropriation of Scripture, that is pneumatological, where we feel and know ourselves addressed by God in it; we realise that God's truth and God's presence are inextricably linked.

This means that there is a dialogical relationship between discovering Scripture as community-forming and identity-fashioning and its elusive reflexive quality challenging and subverting ill-founded identity and mis-established community -again that is my characterisation of what I think Bridges Johns is arguing. She puts in it terms such as "the deconstructive power of the Scriptures brings grace and judgement into the world, beginning first with the people of God."

I think that she's broadly-speaking right in the call for a pneumatological reading of scripture. What we need to be wary of is thinking that this solves problems. It is important to note what kind of church it requires to read such Scriptures: a Church that knows how to listen humbly to the other in genuine love and respect; a Church that knows how to argue with charity rather than a desire to win arguments; a Church that knows that our listening to each other and the scriptures will provoke repentance and may take time for us to discern wisdom from foolishness (and I use that pair rather than right and wrong, deliberately). And this is because we will still have to wrestle with human frailty as interpreters. I would suggest that perhaps our problem with Scripture goes even further back: to choosing Platonic ontology as our route for philosophical understanding rather than the Panta rhei of Heraclitus. Thus Scripture tended to be approached as a 'once and for all' thing rather than a 'living' thing (as suggested by an oft-quoted passage in Hebrews).

Health Care International

If a picture is worth a thousand words ....

Health Care Status.gif (image)

!! ?? !!

Speechless: even having seen these claims before ... It makes me so cross that people can lie so outrageously and not be effectively challenged. ... shakes head sadly ... Obama is losing the health debate – but he can still mobilise and win | Gary Younge | Comment is free | The Guardian: "They have argued that if Steven Hawking were British he would be dead, even though Hawking is British and alive. They insist that under the NHS the state decides whether to 'pull the plug on grandma'."

For a little light relief, the article goes on to say this:

In a blend of the comic and the tragic one protester, who was hospitalised after he got into a fight at a town hall meeting in St Louis, had to have a whip-round to pay for his medical bill – it turns out he had no health insurance.

And, assuming these figures are about right; then there is a huge (but in this case very misplaced) trust in the USA's rightist population that if it's 'America' it must be best because ...

life expectancy in the UK is higher than the US, meaning that even with our supposed state-sponsored euthanasia our grannies still live longer than theirs... As a percentage of GDP the US spends twice as much on it as the UK, and yet one in six aren't even covered. According to government figures, life expectancy for women is lower than in Albania and infant mortality is higher than Cuba. This national disgrace conceals a regional outrage. Black infant mortality in Louisiana is on a par with Sri Lanka; in the very city where the reforms will be decided, Washington DC, life expectancy is lower than the Gaza Strip

US on Britain over release of Lockerbie bomber

I have to get this off my chest. In response to "growing American criticism over the release of the Lockerbie bomber when the most senior US military officer said he was 'appalled' by the decision."
What I want to get out there is my sense that some of the response to this is, well, possibly hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong I have every sympathy with those who have to live with the consequences of someone else's spiteful actions. I have my own share of that to deal with and my heart goes out to others. However, we need to reflect on how things might be were the boot on the other foot, so to speak. What if it was an American incarcerated in a middle eastern or north African country for a horrible crime but one which there was some doubt that they had actually committed (perhaps they were suspected to be a scapegoat caught up in a political situation). I imagine that not only would the USAmerican public be calling for their repatriation, but they would certainly be pleased if that person was released, say at the start of Ramadan, as an act of compassion because they had a terminal illness (released not pardoned, mind). I think that this reflex of 'do as you would be done by' should also inform responses.

Now the goalposts are proverbially moving: when first reported it seemed to be that the very idea of release was producing enraged responses. Now this article seems to indicate that the latest version of 'why we are mad' is articulated by

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN under George Bush. He said: "As someone whose grandparents were Scottish, I'm appalled by the decision of the Scottish government. But I'm more appalled by the decision of the British government apparently to see commercial advantage for the UK in having this mass murderer go free."

What the flippinneque ...? Once we get into this then it starts to look like searching around for reasons to be Mr/Ms Angry: 'Oh, perhaps letting a terminally ill person die at home is not so dire after all: there must be something we can nail them for ...'
I reiterate, this is is no way to condone any wrong-doing by anyone involved in this all, but it is is to encourage us to first of all react to the real facts and to withhold judgement until we really do know what's what and also consider a range of issues. Of course that isn't so easy for those suffering wrong in it all who need to feel that they have been heard and understood. However, that's not the position of many of those who are commenting and raising the temperature.

It does feel a but rich that official USAmerican figures are making noise about the compassionate release of someone convicted (some would say doubtfully so) when we are hearing all sorts of details about wrongs done by American agents to nationals of many countries who have never been convicted of the crimes that apparently warranted their torture. Smoke and mirrors? (And I am aware, before you ask, that some elements of the UKGBI gov may have connived at it -and that's wrong too).
US piles pressure on Britain over release of Lockerbie bomber | World news | The Guardian:
PS. This article has some rather acerbic things to riposte to some USAmerican voices: including a point rather similar to the one I've just made above and adding,

The next time Clinton calls to express her disgust about the decision to send Megrahi home to die, perhaps someone in the Scottish government could ask her in return about the leniency shown to US soldiers involved in the Mai Lai massacre in 1968. And then they can remind her about the US warship Vincennes, which blew an Iranian Airbus and its 290 passengers out of the sky in 1988.

Hmmm; maybe worth thinking about: rage is not a good position in the murky business of international relations; there's dirt on everyone and it's almost certain that any criticism made could be riposted. That's not reason not to criticise, but it is reason to do so chastenedly, soberly and with a degree of humility.

UK to US: The Truth About the NHS!

You know I've been vexed about this, if you've been reading my recent posts. If you are concerned as I am and also hoping that Obama can achieve some of the good stuff we hope from him, then perhaps you'd like to give consideration to this: UK to US: The Truth About the NHS!<br>: "conservative US politicians and greedy insurance companies are pushing lies about the NHS as a way to scare the American public off national health care - risking Obama's whole movement for change and threatening his majority in Congress.
Sign the petition below and tell friends - huge numbers of us will cause a stir in the US media and affect the debate,"

In defence of the NHS

A first-person testimony which I think is worth reflecting on, especially as the author contrasts his experience with the concerns -better, anxieties- of his Houston-living in-laws.
In defence of the NHS: I'm glad I didn't break my leg in the US | Society | The Guardian: "Much as my own grandparents in England feared ending up in the workhouse, my in-laws fear falling into the state-provided Medicaid system (one step down from Medicare), for which you need to be destitute to qualify. Father-in-law Vern says 60% of US bankruptcies are triggered by medical costs.
'No one who has been through illness in this country worries about socialised medicine,' he says. 'We know there is a lot of money and vested interests in play, lots of fire and smoke.
'They are so ignorant about the NHS. It doesn't help when this idiot from the Conservative party comes over and talks down the service and gets lots of publicity. What sort of kick is he on?'"
I shared this with two of my kids and we mused over the fact that had my daughter's accident taken place with us as USAmerican citizens, we might have had problems with her treatment; we could be among those 60% of medical-cost-triggered bankruptcies.
Careless talk costs lives in this kind of debate.

USAmerican healthcare -some sobering realities

Further to my rant-to-get-it-off-my-chest yesterday, I came across this which seems to bear out the sense of outrageous injustice in the claims of some on the USAmerican right. Go here for the whole thing: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care - The Commonwealth Fund And her's the shocking headline news: "Compared with five other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses to improve care coordination for the chronically ill."
Now some of that might actually be down to the economies of scale factor ...

How dare USAmerican republicans slag off the NHS ....

Last night and this morning I was stirred to a rare state of outrage (it takes a lot to get me close to incandescent) but some of the banners being carried by some Re/Publicans lit my blue touchpaper. So it was therapeutic to read an article that said a lot of things that I wanted to say in response: Thank heaven for the NHS | Michele Hanson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk In particular this captured the heart of it (as I come from a poor family): "It's not perfect, no organisation of that size could be, it's bound to make some mistakes, but I don't know where I'd be without it. Probably dead. I have a thyroid condition, and every day for the last 30 years I've had free medication, like thousands of others with ongoing conditions: diabetes, epilepsy, cancer and many others. What happens to the 43 million people in the US who can't afford to pay for such things? Must they live a miserable, painful, debilitated life and die early?"
So the clearly-unthought out guy carrying a placard claiming by implication that for the USA to have a European style medical care system would mean the elderly would be left to die ... well words almost fail me. One I'm very cross that he seemed to think we were practising euthanasia of the wickedest kind; two, I'm outraged that he seems to have forgotten that almost the equivalent number of people in the USA to the number of adults in England are in effect facing that: they are uninsured and the benefits he is presumably hoping for do not extend to them; presumably they hope for charity, go into massive debt or simply have a shorter life expectancy simply because their life circumstances are not as favoured as his. It is the hypocrisy and double standards of the protest which are galling.

Then there was the woman at one meeting who seemed to think that "socialised" health care was communism. The implication seemed to be that 'socialised' not only sounds like but is like 'socialist' which means tyranny. What do these people think is happening in terms of the systems of government of their allies?

Final story. When we had some USAmerican friends to stay a few years back, one of them developed a minor injury, went to a local out-patients' centre, and was treated. She was delighted that no-one asked her for a medical insurance card/papers. She was just treated. That's how it should be. I don't think a country is properly civilised if healthcare is not free or close to it at point of delivery. (Oh and don't get me started on the distortions that profit bring to medical care: unnecessary treatments; litigation-driven inflation ...)

Energy in U.S. -signs of hope

It's not as sexy as some sci-fi style techie things but ...Worldchanging: Bright Green: Energy Efficiency Gains in U.S. Could Cut Sharply Energy Use, Study Says: "A crash program to improve the energy efficiency of American homes, offices, and factories could slash energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020 and produce $1.2 trillion in savings, according to a report by the McKinsey consulting firm." Did you get that: nearly one quarter(that's a fourth to our cousins over the pond) of power could be saved. Contrast with The folly of 'magical solutions' and add to the mix the intriguing hopefulness of USAmerican figures for building wind generation capacity in a recession, and you get the idea that USA-China co-operation on climate and energy might just begin to do what's needed. Might. Just.

Obama: "Stop the Settlements"

This week Obama delivered a historic speech to the Muslim world from Cairo outlining his vision for peace.
I just signed a petition based on Obama's own words, and I thought you might want to do the same it will be published in newspapers in Israel and Washington DC to reach decision-makers.

Click on the link below to support the campaign:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_stop_settlements/98.php?CLICK_TF_TRACKfrom Avaaz:
Here's the letter I got that inspired the sign-up

Dear friends,

President Obama just made a remarkable speech in Egypt, committing personally to building peace in the Middle East. Unexpectedly, his first move is to challenge American ally Israel directly -- pressing its right-wing government to stop their self-destructive policy of settlements, which are illegal colonies set up on territory recognised by the US and the world as Palestinian.

This is a moment of rare crisis and opportunity. Obama’s bold strategy is facing powerful opposition, so he’s going to need help around the world in the coming days and weeks to strengthen his resolve. Let’s start right now -- by raising a massive global chorus behind Obama’s statement that the settlements in occupied territory must stop.

We’ll advertise the number of signatures in key newspapers in Israel, as well as in Washington DC (where some are trying to undermine Obama in the US Congress). Read Obama’s words now and add your signature to them at the link below, then forward this email to friends and family so they can do the same:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_stop_settlements/98.php?CLICK_TF_TRACK

There is broad agreement that the settlements are a significant barrier to peace, a view also shared by a silent majority of the Israeli public. Combined with a network of roadblocks and barriers, these colonies now blanket the West Bank, seizing territory and forcing Palestinians to live effectively as prisoners in smaller and smaller pockets (see map at right).

Until this problem is tackled, it seems impossible to build a viable Palestinian state or any kind of lasting peace. For Arab states deciding what more they themselves can do for peace, stopping the settlements has become a crucial test of Israel’s seriousness.

We’ll need to urge the other parties to take bold steps too. If we can help Obama to stay the course on settlements, shift Israeli policy and encourage the Palestinians and key Arab states also to stretch out their hands, a new beginning for the Middle East is possible.

But none of this will happen without a growing global movement of citizens taking action to support it. Read Obama’s words, add your signature and spread the word today:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_stop_settlements/98.php?CLICK_TF_TRACK

With hope and determination,

Paul, Raluca, Ricken, Brett, Paula, Graziela, Rajeev, Iain, Taren, Milena, Luis, Alice and the whole Avaaz team

-----------------------------------
Obama: "Stop the Settlements"

Obama Outlines Plan for High-Speed Rail

After I visited the states the last time and travelled from Washington DC into the heart of Virginia by train, I felt that there was money to be made in the USA having a faster rail network. 50MPH top speed is a joke for a national passenger rail system. No wonder flying is a national pastime there! I think I blogged about it. The positive side of that, though was that it was a comfortable journey: there was lots of leg room and the drinks car was a real social centre it seemed. Anyway, it seems the president has been seeing sense: Obama Outlines Plan for High-Speed Rail | Autopia from Wired.com: "Obama outlined a strategy that focuses on 10 rail corridors that slice through regional population centers across the United States. Each state would compete for a chunk of the $8 billion in stimulus money that will be distributed to rail projects in the next two years. Another $1 billion will follow over the next five years. Funds will be awarded according to each states' plan to develop and improve the rail corridors."

I note that one of the rail corridors is pretty much one of those that I rode on back then. I think I mentioned it in a blog post.

Oaf of office

Stephen Pinker has an interesting explanation of Obama's difficulties with the oath of office the other day. I'm not sure whether the split verb thing entirely convinces me, but it has a plausibility about it. Here's the articleEdge 272 and here's the guts of the claim: "How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? ... the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling. ... President Obama, whose attention to language is obvious in his speeches and writings, smiled at the chief justice's hypercorrection, then gamely repeated it. Let's hope that during the next four years he will always challenge dogma and boldly lead the nation in new directions."

Congrats Obama: Let's Do it Together

"After 8 long years of Bush - a fresh start. Let's seize this historic moment to send a flood of global messages to Obama.

Our message and the number of signers, as well as all our personal messages, will be displayed on a giant wall in the heart of Washington DC.

Over the next 48 hours, the wall could become a focal point for US media reporting on global reactions to the Obama win. A massive global response will help make this a major moment of unity and reconciliation between the US and the world. Let's get to a million!"
Congrats Obama: Let's Do it Together:

US presidential preference of voting machines

For those of you who have picked up some hints in news reports ... "
more music charts"
US presidential preference � GraphJam: Music and Pop Culture in Charts and Graphs. Let us explain them.: