20 August 2010

"Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll!"

Throughout Britain, particularly London and the South East, commemorations have taken place to mark the 70th anniversary of a speech before the House of Commons by Winston Churchill. In that speech, Winston Churchill uttered the famous line: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

The speech, which gave rise to the nickname "The Few" for the RAF personnel who piloted Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters over the skies of Britain to repel the Nazis' aerial assault of Britain, was generally a state of the war report from the Prime Minister. Churchill spends the first third of the speech detailing technological differences between the two world wars, stating that while casualties in the Battle of Britain were one-fifth that of World War I in the first year, the focus had changed from being an exclusively military struggle to total warfare against civilians, aimed at weakening the British resolve.

As Churchill lauded "The Few" he went on to detail the democracies that had fallen under the power of the German blitzkrieg, and assured them that they had a champion in Great Britain and the United States.

The end of the speech, which rarely is discussed in contrast to "The Few", contains a poignant close from Churchill. As he brings up the need for Britain and the United States to come together in common dialogue and defence, he said:

These are important steps. Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organisations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage.

For my own part, looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days.


A year later, with the Battle of Britain won by "The Few" and the Nazi war machine setting its sights east toward Moscow and Stalingrad, Churchill would meet with Franklin D. Roosevelt off the coast of Newfoundland to hammer out the Atlantic Charter. Not only did it provide a foundation on which the United Nations was formed five years later in San Francisco, it also put the final touches onto a special relationship, torn by the Revolution and War of 1812, reunited during World War I, and drawing even closer as two nations divided by common language began to reaffirm their inherent ties.

It was a special relationship that Churchill would grow to appreciate, giving one of his most famous speeches in 1946 on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton. And the United States would pay him back in 1963, as Congress would bestow Churchill with honourary citizenship. (Granted, as Churchill's mother was an American, he could have sought U.S. citizenship outright had he wanted to.)

Indeed today is a day of reflection, not only for the efforts of "The Few" to preserve their country, but their role in helping Churchill defend democracy from a deranged dictatorship and establish the core of the special relationship that continues to ebb and flow through American and British affairs to this day.

19 August 2010

It's a Quarter After One, I'm Tanked At The Red Lion…

I began typing this entry 35,000 feet over Cedar Point, at the same time two lads from Tennessee and their gorgeous lead singer wrapped up a three-day sojourn across the pond, building on the unprecedented chart success they’re achieving.

Lady Antebellum’s trip to Britain may appear fruitless, performing only one concert, and that one to 2000 devoted fans at Shepherd’s Bush Empire in London, but for those pining for the world to embrace the trademark twang of country, that close-knit concert may very well be country music’s equivalent to The Beatles’ landmark 1964 debut concert on The Ed Sullivan Show and at old Shea Stadium.

And Britain may have just warmed up to the format, in particular the three members of Lady Antebellum. In addition to BBC Radio One regularly performing tracks from their newest album Need You Now, the trio of Dave Haywood, Charles Kelley and Hillary Scott appeared on BBC One’s Breakfast Show for a live interview segment lasting just over seven minutes. Need You Now, including the title song and “I Run To You”, have soared on the UK’s charts, echoing the success the trio have registered in the US over the likes of Justin Bieber, Rhianna and fellow country starlet Taylor Swift.

Listing The Beatles as among their influences, and joking that they were once mistaken for Kings of Leon, Lady Antebellum are the epitome of not just the world’s earbuds acclimating to songs about mama, drinking, pickup trucks, and jailhouse blues, but equally of country music evolving from its distinctly rural American roots. Much as the Mississippi delta gave rise to jazz and blues, genres quickly embraced and adapted by legendary British rockers including Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger, country music has now reached a point where it has openly influenced, and been influenced by, the bass beats of classic rock, the somber, soothing tones of adult contemporary, and even the occasional jolt from heavy metal.

Even as The New York Times declared country music dead in 1985, performers rooted in church choirs and old guitar standards began branching out from behind the friendly confines of the WSM microphone at the Grand Ole Opry. Artists, ranging from classic Southern Belles like Reba McEntire to transplants like the Canadian Shania Twain, explored the inclusion of traits from beyond the commonly acceptable bounds of country music. As country music caught on across North America, so too did the outside influences. Shania drew some flack for a song which, for all intents and purposes, could hardly be classified as country. Reba built on her success by way of launching a television series on The WB (and later The CW), running for six seasons. Reba's crossover appeal furthered when she released an album of duets in 2007, featuring Kelly Clarkson, Don Henley, Carole King and Justin Timberlake among her collaborators.

In the past two years alone, country music has reached a point where it is, for all intents and purposes, attached to the mainstream as much as hip-hop and R&B. Taylor Swift’s near-bubble gum pop appeal, with chart success on country and mainstream charts, drew a less than positive response from a certain rapper on a certain live music award broadcast. Soft rock crooners Darius Rucker (of Hootie and the Blowfish fame) and Uncle Kracker have found their ways on the country charts by virtue of including just enough twang for country music stations' programming directors to add them to their playlists.

Many of these artists, though, can also look back to successes achieved by rock-and-roll pioneers such as Elvis and Boddy Holly, or can look to the enduring image of Jim Reeves. Over 45 years after his umtimely passing in a plane crash en route to Nashville, Reeves' booming bass voice against gentle background music continues to resonate in the songbooks of Britain, Ireland, and South Africa, where he spent several months touring in 1963.

Could Lady Antebellum's newfound appeal across the pond result in the potential inclusion of up to 400 million fans, or maybe some Johnny Cash knockoffs in future Eurovision Song Contests? Or has country music morphed into the point where it is now part of the Simon Cowell-fronted-but-really-controlled-by-Sony-investors cookie-cutter music machine, defined only by an artist's preferred training, or what a publicist believes would best market the artist? These are questions that not only tug at the ear of devoted and occasional music fans, but also probe deeper into society.

Whether British fans of Lady Antebellum will delve deeper into the rich history of Country music and find a new genre of their own liking, or start grouping their tracks with Little Boots because both artists play regularly on Heart, will be a test of time. If past results are any indication, though, it will likely be the latter. I've yet to hear Mix 93 or Z100 play anything by Lena or Alexandra Burke.

12 August 2010

Freshmen MPs vulnerable to Foot-In-Mouth Disease

Funny how an outside candidate keen to make himself accessible now, as an elected official, wants to cut off access.

Over the last month Dominic Raab, the Conservative representing Esher and Walton in the House of Commons, has called on a political advocacy blog to pull his e-mail address from their Web site. Raab has told media outlets that his office is being flooded with e-mails from across Britain and that they're unable to handle the volume of correspondence.

The blog in question, 38degrees, bills itself on enabling concerned citizens to sign petitions and pursue group action on various issues, ranging from recalling MPs who may have misused their position to local planning issues including proposed CAFOs and housing developments. For the past month, 38degrees' operators and Raab have exchanged e-mails concerning Raab's request and made those e-mails public.

Raab has taken offence to his inbox being flooded with hundreds of e-mails from concerned citizens across the length and breadth of Britain sending the same form letter advocating for the adoption of the Alternative Vote, the referendum which is slated to occur in May 2011. In the e-mail exchange with 38degrees, Raab has noted that he would welcome responding to individual e-mails from advocates of AV. Both Raab and 38degrees say they have advice from Parliament's Information Commissioner backing their stand on Raab's request.

Now, on the surface, this request appears idiotic. Raab is a public figure now. His e-mails, if they're conducted from a government e-mail account, are subject to opens records laws. (That said, Raab listed a Yahoo! e-mail address on his candidate profile, and if he is still using that Yahoo! account for government business, then that's a slightly different issue here.) And Raab asking people to stop e-mailing him, be it to his Yahoo! or Commons e-mail address, is like asking the Niagara River to stop flowing over Horseshoe Falls.

What his office can do, like what several reps here in Missouri do, is set up a generic auto-reply that acknowledges receipt of an e-mail and explicitly state on there that unless the issue is raised by a resident in his constituency (as verified by post codes) there's a good chance the e-mail won't be replied to or actually be seen by the MP. If an e-mail did not include a post code or did not match those that reside in the constituency (in Raab's situation those would be KT10, KT11 and KT12), then the office staff could label it as low priority. This would be to ensure that the highest priority emails—from constituents and media—would be given top priority.

What concerns me about 38degrees, and what may be distressing Raab, is whether the e-mails he's receiving via 38degrees' mailing system (which is modelled on progressive grassroots sites like MoveOn.org) is mailing the same form letter to all 650 MPs, regardless of the petitioner's given constituency. While it is useful to generate large numbers as to show national opinion on certain issues, an MP's priority must be his/her constituency. If the MP is to be a delegate representing the wishes of his/her residents (as opposed to a trustee), then he/she must be able to discern the voices of his/her neighbours over those of adamant campaigners.

While Web sites like 38degrees, MoveOn.org, (and even Missives from Missouri, to a lesser extent) allow regular citizens to become aware and actively involved in issues affecting their lives, citizens need to be able to think and form opinions for themselves, rather than just fill in a few boxes and go back to watching EastEnders or iCarly. Rather than remaining a sheep under the stewardship of a new shepherd, a truly active citizen needs to be able to articulate their view and personal experiences relating to such issues. Only then will the power of new media reach its optimum.

07 August 2010

Divided Attention, Dog Days of Summer Edition

Just under a fortnight ago I attended the wedding of two college friends. Not only was it the first wedding I attended since things across the pond went the way of Labour when Michael Foot handled the helm, but it was also a mini-reunion of sorts with several peers I hadn't seen since my years at Truman. In particular, I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with the husband of one of those peers. It was a most enjoyable and informative conversation for both of us, and the insight I gained from it has given me a chance to reflect on, well, the general direction of this blog. Or should I say indirection?

But again, my attention is divided. Much like how I'm split between covering the news of home and recent happenings in Blighty, city leaders in KCMO are split between what exactly to ask voters to approve with the public safety sales tax due for renewal before June 2011. The quarter-cent levy currently goes towards improving the police department's facilities and equipment, including the new police academy and Shoal Creek Patrol building just outside Pleasant Valley. Several on the city council, backed by police chief Jim Corwin, want to retain the sales tax for this use.

However, Mayor Mark Funkhouser wants to put more police officers on the streets. Citing citizen concerns raised to him, the mayor would instead like to augment the sales tax to foot the salaries of 100 officers, and extend its duration for 20 years rather than 15.

At first glance, I'm inclined to back more police on the beat. That means more eyes watching out for crime, traffic infractions, and kids in need of Royals baseball cards. Unfortunately, the mayor's desire to hire extra personnel by way of a sales tax generates two major problems.

The first problem, more critically, is proposing a sales tax with a set duration (let alone a sales/use tax) to increase the number of personnel serving a critical need for the city. Say you're one of the 100 officers brought in as a result of a passed sales tax aimed at hiring more officers. When that tax expires and citizens don't renew it, or sales revenue plummets more than it already has, your job probably isn't that secure. Even if the advocacy groups and unions do all they can to make sure you get your salary, generate bad PR for the city, etc., it would still compromise the force's effectiveness the same way dumping 100 officers or slashing a different part of the budget would. And further, this fear could easily be played upon by civic leaders looking to subvert such a tax into a gravy train for pet projects, or rely heavily on this tax as to free up money from other sources for said gravy train pet projects.

The second problem, at the moment, is that in Missouri it's not legal to propose such a tax. Until August 28. That's when Senate Bill 981, sponsored by Democrat Victor Callahan of Independence, becomes law. It would allow Kansas City to pass a sales tax of up to one percent to fund salaries of police officers. Unfortunately, while parts of the bill contain emergency clauses, this particular provision did not. Which is problematic as, for the measure to appear on the November ballot, the city must approve ballot wording by the 19th.

As the city is not on the same page on this critical subject, I suspect that voters will face a desperation-induced ballot measure come April, shortly after KCMO voters are worn out from a municipal election that still operates on the oddest dates for elections in Missouri.