Last night, ABC News pointed out there was a dearth of Americans attending the Sochi Winter Olympics. They should be congratulated. After all, considering the hatchet-job accomplished by the US media in denouncing the games and its Russian hosts, I’m surprised even American athletes attended.

Ever since Edward Snowden ran off with the state secrets, not an opportunity’s been missed to have a go at Russia in general, and Vladimir Putin in particular. Did Putin put him up to it? Was he working for the Russians?

Then, along came the preparations for the “Games”, and suddenly terrorists were popping out the woodwork all over Russia. You could attend the games, at your own risk, but you’d best learn the Russian for, “Sell me some toothpaste, please,” because you’re not taking your tube of Colgate along.

Then came the US media’s catalogue of Russian defects: the hotels weren’t built; the stadium wouldn’t be ready on time; the village was a sea of mud; surely Russian workers were the laziest in the world(?); there were no locks on the bathroom doors, and – concealed video cameras in the showers.

The ultimate delight for those paragons of virtue in US newsrooms was during the opening ceremony, when a snowflake failed to metamorphose into an Olympic ring. Oh, my God! Could those doggone Ruskys get nothing right?

My personal ‘moment of Zen’ was a remark from P J O’Rourke (a journalist whose writings I greatly admire, though rarely agree with) on the Bill Maher show.

When asked by Maher what he, as a well traveled man, thought of Russia. O’Rourke’s responding monologue on the state of that nation included the phrase, “…a country very lacking in culture…”.

O’Rourke could possibly be forgiven for never having heard of renowned Russian classical painters like, Ivanov or Borovikovsky. His knowledge of Soviet history may not take in the father of Russian literature, Alexander Pushkin…

…born just twenty-three years after the signing of the US Declaration of Independence, or Nikolai Basov and Alexander Prokhorov who, with Charles Townes, shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics “for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser–laser principle”.^[1]

O’Rourke, however, cannot be excused his deliberate denial of such great artists as: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Igor Stravinsky, Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergey Diaghilev, Anna Pavlova, Rudolf Nureyev, the Bolshoi Ballet Company, et al.. Maybe he believes the world’s oldest film school is in Hollywood? It’s not. It’s the Russian State Institute of Cinematography, in Moscow.

Or, is it possible O’Rourke’s definition of “culture” is merely to win a gold medal at the Olympics – for snowboarding?

Those who follow the BBC News may be aware of the floods presently engulfing much of England.

It’s no comfort to read that the UK’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, ‘suspects’ the possible cause to be global climate change.

This, from the BBC yesterday:

At Prime Minister’s Questions last month, Mr Cameron said he “suspected” that the recent storms to batter the UK and the extreme weather in North America were connected to global temperature changes – an argument challenged by some Conservative MPs and peers.

He subsequently clarified the remarks, saying that although “you can’t point to one weather event and say that is climate change”, many scientists were talking of a link between the two.

“The point I was really trying to make is, whatever you think – even if you think that (climate change) is mumbo-jumbo – because these things are happening more often, it makes sense to do all you can to… prevent these floods affecting so many people and that is exactly what we are doing.”^[2]

Mister Cameron, who’s never been known for his supportive stance on man-made climate change, may be in process of an embarrassing U-turn due to a recently published report by the UK’s Meteorological Office.

The BBC again:

Dame Julia [Slingo, the Met Office’s chief scientist] said the UK had seen the “most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years”.

Unsettled weather at this time of year was not unexpected – but the prolonged spell of rain, as well as the intensity and height of coastal waves, was “very unusual”.

“We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this,” she said. “We have seen some exceptional weather. We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.”

The report links the recent extreme weather in Europe and North America to “perturbations” in the North Atlantic and Pacific jet streams, partly emanating from changing weather patterns in South East Asia and “associated with higher than normal ocean temperatures in that region”.^[2]

British weather records go back ten years prior to the US Declaration of Independence, and thirty-three years before Alexander Pushkin was born. Since then, at least, the winter of 2013/14 has produced the most catastrophic weather Britain has ever suffered. I wonder how much evidence Mister Cameron will require before he fires the man whom, in 2012, he put in charge of the environment – Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson.

Paterson is a known climate skeptic. His choice for the job had more to do with his backing for the expansion of Heathrow Airport, than any track record as a protector of the environment. Paterson is one of those dying breed of men: the would-be aristocrat. He has a passion for hunting foxes with hounds, describing those who campaigned against the cruel practice as, “Nazis”. His wealth is estimated in the region of $2.25 million. He supports GM crop production in Britain, and just loves the pesticide industry.

In January, as a sop to English farmers, Paterson authorized the slaughter of 70% of the badger population of two English counties by shooting and trapping. Badgers are known to carry TB and infect cattle herds. The cull was both unnecessary and counter-productive. Only 24% of the badgers were killed, and the pilot project “..designed to show how effective, humane and safe a cull could be…” was a total failure.

A more humane alternative, the vaccinating of cattle against the disease, has long been dismissed as too expensive by the politicians, even though it will prove the only option long term.

Today, we hear that Paterson has decided it’s time to dredge the Somerset Levels – the most flooded area of Britain at this time. It may have been a viable proposition ten years ago, but will have no effect on preventing flooding in the future, assuming climate change doesn’t do a convenient reversal. Once again, Paterson is merely assuaging his fellow land owners without prior consultation with expert scientific bodies.

No doubt he fervently hopes all these problems will eventually go away and he can return to a life of affluent leisure on his country estate.

It’s unlikely Cameron will remove him. After all, it’s jobs for the boys – and ‘the boys’ always stick together.

In a nutshell, the UK’s Owen Paterson is to the environment, what America’s P. J. O’Rourke is to Russian culture.

^{[1] “Alexander Prokhorov” Wikipedia}

^{[2] “Met Office: Evidence ‘suggests climate change link to storms'” BBC, February 9th 2014}

It was called the “Bloody Code”, and between 1688 and 1815 it was responsible for the deaths of thousands, for no more dastardly crime than stealing an article valued at twelve pence or more. In Britain, by the end of the 17th century, there were 220 offences on the statute book punishable by death.

Thankfully, the nation gradually grew more civilized. By 1861 only five offences carried the ultimate punishment: murder, piracy, espionage, high treason, and arson in a naval dockyard. While the latter may appear incongruous to us now, it should be remembered that the first iron clad warships didn’t appear until the middle of the nineteenth century. Prior to this, fire in a naval dockyard could prove disastrous for the fleet.

Thankfully, by the end of the 1960’s, capital punishment had been all but abolished in the UK (though it wasn’t until 1971 that ‘arson in a naval dockyard’ was no longer legally punishable by death). While no executions took place in the UK after 1964, it was only in 2004 that its government finally acceded to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibited the death penalty outright. Europe, and the United Kingdom, finally became civilized.

Whether it was the effects of the civilian bombings on British cities during World War II, or for some other more nebulous reason, the British people in general appear to hold a more humane attitude to the taking of ‘a life for a life’, than is the case with their American counterparts across the Atlantic. Of course, it took some hundreds of years for the death penalty in Britain to be finally abolished, and it must be noted that some sections of the UK citizenry still exert pressure for its reintroduction. Their demands are usually most vociferous following a particularly nasty murder, often involving a child or children. Fortunately, to date, their voices have generally gone unheeded.

Media presentation is exceedingly influential in defining how the public respond to high-profile trials. Allowing television in court rooms is perhaps one of the most scandalous decisions ever taken in this area. How a jury can possibly make an unbiased decision as to the guilt or otherwise of the defendant, given the media hype surrounding some high-profile trials, is highly questionable. In the United States, certain television channels devote much of their run-time to arguing the guilt or innocence of defendants both before and during a trial, some of which can go on for weeks, if not months.

By the time a jury retires to consider its verdict, the whole nation has taken sides and the process of determining whether a defendant should forfeit his life reduced to nothing more than entertainment value. Numerous interviews with friends and relatives of the victim(s), who frequently give vent to hysterics, and screams for vengeance, whip up audiences to even greater frenzy. Seldom, if ever, do we hear from the family of the accused.

Frankly, even though we’re more advanced technologically, the process is reminiscent of the entertainment for the masses provided by 18th century hangings at Tyburn in England, or the guillotining of aristocrats in Paris, France, during the revolution.

Until 1981, under British law, ‘sub judice’ prevented the reporting of, or commenting on, any case once the defendant had been arrested. This has now been superseded by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, which serves a similar purpose.

Owing to the somewhat ridiculously adhered to First Amendment right of ‘freedom of speech’, such is not the case in the USA. Consequently, jurors and courts are open to all types of prejudicial bombardment from outside influences, and the chances of the defendant receiving a fair trial are drastically reduced. Public opinion is egregiously swayed by continuous media discussions, often involving so-called ‘experts’ of dubious qualification, and the whole process becomes nothing more than a media circus.

Under such circumstances the possibility of an incorrect verdict, resulting in an innocent person being found guilty, is vastly increased. Consequently, it’s safe to assume a percentage of prisoners on ‘death row’ are innocent of the crimes they’ve been found guilty of committing.

It’s a common argument, from those who still advocate its use, that the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime. It was George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax…

…who, in the mid-17th century, remarked:

Men are not hang’d for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.”

He was wrong then, just as those who advocate its deterrent effects are wrong today. The threat of any punishment does not deter the ardent criminal. At the time of the offence he believes he will not be caught.

As I read this week of the agonizing death of Dennis McGuire, executed in Ohio,^[1] or the execution of Edgar Tamayo, a Mexican, in Texas^[2] -illegally under international law- I am forced to the belief that this great superpower, with its grip around the throat of the world, has yet to learn the meaning of ‘civilization’.

It’s not that I hold much sympathy for the executed. Often the crimes they committed and the atrocities they performed caused far greater trauma to their victims. My concern is for the frightening lack of humanity on display in this country, and volubly applauded by the media. It’s easy to forget that executions are carried out on our behalf. We cannot remove ourselves from the responsibility simply because we’re not the ones tightening the straps, raising the vein, inserting the needle.

Read the reports of journalists allowed access to men on death row, and virtually without exception the reporter writes of a strong realization that these men are real human beings. However callous, cruel, or cold-blooded the crime, it pays to remind ourselves the perpetrator was somebody’s son, father, uncle or nephew.

Before joining Fox News, or CNN, in applauding the execution of yet another long-term inmate of the death cell, it may be as well to remember: it’s not what capital punishment imposes on the criminal so much, as the un-civilizing effect it inflicts on those responsible for imposing it.

^{[1] “Row over ‘agonising’ Ohio execution of killer Denis McGuire” BBC, January 17th 2014}

^{[2] “Texas executes Mexican Edgar Tamayo, despite protests” BBC, January 22nd 2014}

Try as I might, I cannot feel empathy with America, or Americans. It’s true that when I return to Britain for a vacation it feels good to return to the US. I have no home in Britain anymore, so being back in my own house gives a certain feeling of security; belonging.

I expected to acclimatize to the differences in culture, particularly after eleven years in the US, but I’m resigned now that such will never be the case. It was brought home to me again, as it so often is, by the evening CBS news broadcast.

One might have expected the news program to lead with the shooting at a school in New Mexico. It didn’t. Instead, anchor Scott Pelley flaunted his arrogance by showing a video of an air accident that occurred five months ago in which a young Chinese girl was killed.

Pelley was quick to make much of this as a “CBS exclusive” – the video having been filmed from a fireman’s helmet as they attempted to douse the blazing Asiana airliner at San Fransisco airport – stating that the parents of the girl were using the video as evidence to sue the airport authority.

Is this a measure of the American mind, I asked myself, that some legality over a five month old accident is more important than a kid shooting up a school with a shotgun? Or, has this type of horrific incident now become so commonplace as to not be newsworthy?

Eventually, CBS did get around to mentioning this latest school shooting. A twelve year old boy walked into school with a shotgun, wounded one girl in the arm and an eleven year old boy in the face. The girl is “in a serious condition” in hospital; the boy is on the critical list.

Perhaps the most galling part of CBS’s segment was when the governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez…

…told reporters that the best thing to do is, “pray for the victims”. We hear this after every such incident. It’s a great way to avoid the responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of every state and federal politician, every member of the NRA, every US citizen who owns a gun and fails to support responsible, mature, gun control legislation.

Sure! Let’s just pray for the victims. It won’t do those who’ve been shot one iota of good, but, by God, it’ll make us feel a whole lot better. And isn’t that truly all that matters? Now we can go on playing our lethal games with our lethal toys and God’ll take care of everything.

Sadly, America, I think God has proved time and time again He’s got better things to do with His time. (NOTE: the capitalization is a mark of respect to those who actually believe God exists, and have read sufficient of His Son’s teachings to realize neither God, nor His offspring, has any truck with weapons that kill and maim His children).

How do kids of twelve get their hands on such weapons? Because Daddy (or Mommy) is so bloody irresponsible as to leave these lethal weapons where their kids can get hold of them. And, let’s be brutally honest, these incidents happen so frequently – so often that news programs no longer treat them as headline news unless a bevy of carcasses are left behind – that there must be a whole multitude of irresponsible citizens out there. If that isn’t a good reason for strong legislation to control the owning of guns, I truly don’t know what is.

Do Americans realize this crazy situation is totally specific to them? Do they really believe other countries have similar problems that just aren’t reported on American news? Let me assure you, US citizen, they don’t.

In the whole of Europe, with over twice the population of the United States, there have only been eighteen school shootings in the last one hundred years. Eight in Germany; one in France; one in Sweden; one in Norway; three in Finland; one in Hungary; one in Denmark, one in the UK, and two in the Netherlands.^[1]

In the United States of America, between 1927 and the present day, there were:

136^[2]

I guess the New Mexico incident brings the total to 137.

How do Americans live with themselves and their consciences?

I suppose this is one reason I find it hard to empathize with Americans and feel at home in this country. So many of the citizenry are so immature and irresponsible as to value the lives of their children less than the arrogant and prestigious high they experience by owning and handling the very weapons that regularly annihilate them.

^{[1] “List of school shootings in Europe” Wikipedia.}

^{[2] “List of school shootings in the United States Wikipedia.}