All You Need is Christ ~ Unless You Have the Money to Buy Presents Too

The Church of England’s Christmas campaign is Christmas Starts with Christ, which is quite good. A direct reminder to anyone who cares to listen that Christmas may not have had its origins in consumerism. The campaign plays with those words: Does Christmas start with telly ads in October? No! It starts with Christ and Does Christmas start with a fight on Eastenders? No! It starts with Christ. Pretty good. But then there is this one: Does Christmas have to start with a payday loan? No! It starts with Christ. This last one makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I’m willing to bet that the people who thought up this strap line, designed the poster and approved the concept will not need a payday loan to buy presents for their husbands, wives, partners, children, siblings, parents and friends. I’m also willing to bet that many of the people this ad is direct towards, the poor among us, will need a payday loan to buy presents for their love ones. The slogan tells them this: You don’t need to give presents to your children. All you need is Christ.

What is so troublesome about this particular ad is that the people who created the slogan will have Christ and presents. Regardless of where Christmas starts, they will give gifts to their families and friends on Christmas. Once again it is middle class and rich church members telling the poor all they need is faith while they themselves have faith plus the other stuff too.

It’s difficult for those of us who have enough or have plenty to imagine what it must be like to be unable to give Christmas presents to your children. Payday loan? You bet. I sure love Christ, but my kids deserve a gift too.

It would be different if the church announced that along with this ad about payday loans church leaders and members were not going to buy gifts for their love ones this Christmas to stand in solidarity with the poor. It would the church say: If we are encouraging you to not take out a loan and therefore not be able to give presents to your family, then we too will not give presents to our families.  It could be a Christmas starts with Christ and ends with Christ campaign. And yes, in this case we would all be in it together. It would be even more impressive if church leaders and members were to take the money they would have spent on Christmas, and not buy presents for poor people because it’s a Christ-filled Christmas for all of us, but instead gave that money to the organisations that run the over 400 hundreds of food banks in Britain that will help people feed their families on Christmas (it’s estimated that the Trussell Trust supplies food for almost 500,000 people, a third of whom are children).

There is something else. If the church is going to encourage people not to use payday loan companies at Christmas, hopefully that same church is also asking the powers and principalities why the payday loan companies are thriving. Church pronouncements of faith and theology that only encourage people to turn to Christ without challenging the structures and powers that create poverty are cheap.

Well, it is Christmas and I’m certain the payday loan ad means well and the Church of England offers an alternative to payday loan companies through their credit unions. I just wish the church of all traditions would just be a little more careful.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Gotta Keep Smiling

It’s interesting how sometimes disparate events in your life come together to affect significant change. Sometimes it feels as if change has been let loose upon rational constraints rendering the future more ambiguous than we would like to think it is. In a two and a half  week period three incidents occurred in my life which, each taken alone were not insignificant, but taken cumulatively mean big time change. Oh well.

Change 1: Michelangelo’s

Michelangelo’s closed. Actually it wasn’t called Michelangelo’s when it closed. In the seventeen years Roberta and I went to Michelangelo’s it went through two name changes. First to Locale and then to Osteria, but we never stopped calling it Michelangelo’s.

We’ve been going to Michelangelo’s every Friday we were both in town for seventeen years. We knew the staff. If truth be told, as staff members came and then departed, we cultivated a rather symbiotic relationship with them all, which, I think, benefited everyone (the possible exception being the owner, Ludovico). Years ago Mario, the then manager, would come to our table to complain about life, well mostly his life. One day out of the blue he started giving us free classes of wine, I guess for our trouble. That set the ball rolling and each new staff member learned that we were given certain benefits which through time included free bread and olives, free glasses of wine and grappa (for me) and limoncello (for Roberta) after dinner. We in return gave them a healthy tip. It worked for seventeen years.

Michelangelo'sMore importantly Roberta and I did a lot of living in that restaurant. We talked about everything and nothing. We made important and trivial decisions. We laughed. A few times we cried. We fought (and on a few occasions fought big time!). Michelangelo’s was where we went to celebrate and to mourn. It was where we talked about job nightmares and cancer. It’s where we dreamed and kept our feet on the ground.

While it seems like a small thing that one’s favourite restaurant would close, it actually can be a really big deal. For the past few Fridays we have been wondering close to home looking in restaurant windows looking for a new home (and learning that a dinner out cost a hell of a lot more without the "benefits"). The picture left top is me sitting at our favourite table. Gotta keep smiling.

Change 2: Clinical Nurse Specialist

My clinical nurse specialist, David, is leaving the Royal Free Hospital, which is also to say he is leaving me. For the past three years, from the moment he looked me in the eyes and told me I had cancer until last week when he told me I’m all clear a year after surgery, he has been taking care of me. David has been professional and caring, truthful and understanding. He kept on top of things even when I was sent to another hospital for my radical prostatectomy. When you have a prostatectomy you go home from the hospital with a catheter. After ten days I went to David to have the catheter removed and begin (what thankfully turned out to be only a few days) wearing diapers and pads. Getting the catheter out was great, but having to wear man-diapers seemed terribly embarrassing before the fact. However, David handled the situation in such an understated and professional manner, I was totally at ease. I mean, he did so much more for me over the three years, but you don’t forget a guy who puts you at ease while he’s pulling a tube out of you penis and then telling you how to wear a man-diaper. And now he’s gone. He left me. I’m on my own. Well not really. I’ll be assigned another nurse, but it sure feels like abandonment. Don’t forget I’m talking about cancer here. Losing David is like losing my guide out of Cancerland. Gotta keep smiling.

Change 3: Moving

My SpaceWe’re moving from London. I can’t comment on why we’re leaving London – probably get Roberta in trouble if I did – but it means I’m moving from the house, home, I’ve lived in for the past seventeen years. The longest I had ever lived in one place before this was five years, so this is a big deal. This house, the garden, Golders Green, Michelangelo’s, the news agent, Baskin Robins, the buses and tube, and our neighbours Helen and Jack have been good to me. (During our first Hanukah here we went next door and gave Jack and Helen a gift. Roberta said, “Just a small gift to thank you for being such good neighbours.” Jack immediately responded, “I’ll have to be a better neighbour and get a bigger gift next year.”)

My SpaceMoving from London also means leaving my study, my space. It’s more than possible in my new home I will have a new my space, but it won’t be this my space where I now write. I was Skyping a friend in California last week, again in my study, and when I tried explaining the significance of leaving my space he looked bemused. So I explained: this is the one place in the entire universe where I don’t give a damn what anyone thinks about what I do with or in my space. In my space I have total self-actualisation, not defining myself by what others think of me or their judgments about how I spend my time. If you criticise our living room, well that would probably affect me. I might react with embarrassment or defensiveness. But if you criticise my study, I don’t really give a damn, and I might tell you so. This is the one place where I feel completely at home, in a place I completely created. Laugh, cry, ridicule, be indifferent to what I’ve done. Matters not a jot to me. Not here. Seventeen years of my space is about to change. Gotta keep smiling.

The forces of changes have been let loose in my life in a metaphorical blink of an eye. What am I going to do! Well for starters, find a new restaurant, be assigned a new clinical nurse specialist and move to a new house. Simples. It’s not the end of the world. It’s just the inevitable movement of time. The universe will do me no favours. Nor is it out to get me. Still, I can’t help but look over my shoulder while looking forward wondering what might be around the next corner.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Junk

On a Monday morning in Bergen, Norway my wife and her parents went off to visit a museum. I went to a junk shop. On the window in fancy letters were the words “Brukt ~ Antikk,” which I believe translate as “Used ~ Antique.” Make no mistake. It was junk, lots and lots of junk. An amazing amount of wonderful junk.

Brukt ~ AntikkWhy I wanted to visit the junk shop is somewhat of a mystery. I had little intention of buying anything, though I carried cash just in case I found a must have item. The shop was wonderfully chaotic. It was difficult to manoeuvre given there was little floor space to walk, though narrow pathways through the junk could be found. Junk was on the floor, on the walls, hanging from the ceiling. There were two smaller rooms that you simply could not walk into they were so stuffed with junk. I had an utterly delightful time, though in the end I did not buy anything.

When I returned to London I started thinking about junk. Why? Because some would say my study is filled with junk. I just did a quick count. I have 153 items of junk in my study that I have brought back from other parts of the world. I have junk from India, Myanmar, Taiwan, Thailand, China, Japan, Greece, Turkey, Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, Angola, Madagascar, Australia, Jamaica, Guyana, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Norway, the United States in my study (and I suspect there is more junk from other countries but it is taking too long to find it all). Downstairs there is more international junk in the living room. My wife is very tolerant.

When I was diagnosed with cancer I sat in my big brown chair in my study and rather dramatically, though not unreasonably, contemplated my up-coming death. As I looked around the study I decided to make a list of which particularly treasure should be given to which particular friend upon my demise. I assigned the large graffiti coloured Berlin Wall fragments to Kevin and the framed original 1994 South African election ballot and the likewise framed election day front page of the Sowetan to Philip. A good start, but then I realised it was very doubtful anyone else would want any of this junk. When I told my wife of my plan, she confirmed my suspicion with a look that communicated both sadness that I was contemplating my immanent  parting and embarrassment that I had ever thought anyone would want my junk. So, I guess it is more than possible that all my junk will end up in a junk shop or a dump (though hopefully not any time soon given treatment went well). I would prefer a junk shop so that one day in the future a stranger might be browsing and decide one of my pieces of junk was just what he or she wanted.

Brukt ~ AntikkHere’s what dictionaries say about junk:

From thefreedictionary.com:  

• Discarded material, such as glass, rags, paper, or metal, some of which may be reused in some form.
• Articles that are worn-out or fit to be discarded.
• Cheap or shoddy material.
• Something meaningless, fatuous, or unbelievable.

Google.co.uk:

• Old or discarded articles that are considered useless or of little value.

The oxforddictionary.com says much the same but adds:

• Worthless writing, talk, or ideas: I can’t write this kind of junk
• A person’s belongings: I only have an hour to get all my junk together and interestingly
• US vulgar slang a man’s genitals.
• Heroin:  you do anything for junk—cheat, lie, steal
• The lump of oily fibrous tissue in a sperm whale’s head, containing spermaceti.

And from the urbandictionary.com:

• Seemingly useless rubbish which sits around for months and is inevitably disposed of the day before it is needed.

And, course

• A male’s genitals again.

We might add:

• Things that people have lost.

The word junk apparently comes from the Middle English jonk, which meant an old cable or rope. People who love words speculate:

Brukt ~ AntikkFirst recorded in 1353, the word meant "an old cable or rope." On a sailing ship it made little sense to throw away useful material since considerable time might pass before one could get new supplies. Old cable was used in a variety of ways, for example, to make fenders, that is, material hung over the side of the ship to protect it from scraping other ships or wharves. Junk came to refer to this old cable as well. The big leap in meaning taken by the word seems to have occurred when junk was applied to discarded but useful material in general. This extension may also have taken place in a nautical context, for the earliest, more generalized use of junk is found in the compound junk shop, referring to a store where old materials from ships were sold. Junk has gone on to mean useless waste as well. (See urbandictionary.com)

Putting aside the definitions about writing, sperm whales, men’s genitals and heroin, junk shops should be applauded. Remember junk, things that have become worn-out, shoddy, discarded, meaningless, fatuous, or unbelievable, used to be someone’s possession, tool, joy, desire, memory. Junk shops collect all this lost stuff and at least give it all the possibility of rehabilitation, thus becoming someone else’s tool, joy, desire, memory. Lost junk becomes found.

The 153 pieces of junk crammed into my study are all material items that create or enable ephemeral memories. I would not be the same person without all my junk. My experiences and soul infect these material items with remembrance and identity. Admittedly, if someone many years down the road buys some of my junk in a junk shop, he or she will not also inherit the essence of me, but they will be purchasing possibilities. Junk attracts memories. Anybody’s memories. Junk is completely inclusive in this regard.

There is, of course, Paul McCartney’s song Junk. A Wikipedia entry (referring to The Beatles Bible) suggests the song wonders why “we leave things that were a part of our lives and replace them with others, because at the same time we leave memories objects, in a metaphysical way.”

Perhaps calling up the metaphysical is a stretch, but perhaps not. In any event, I’ll end with the lyrics of Junk:

Motor cars, handle bars
Bicycles for two
Broken hearted jubilee

Parachutes, army boots
Sleeping bags for two
Sentimental jamboree

Buy! Buy!
Says the sign in the shop window
Why? Why?
Says the junk in the yard

Da, da, ya, da, da, da
Da, da, da
Da, da, ya, da, da
Da, da, da, da, da, da, da

Candle sticks, building bricks
Something old and new
Memories for you and me

Buy! Buy!
Says the sign in the shop window
Why? Why?
Says the junk in the yard

(See Metrolyrics.com)

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

My Baptism by Ice

As I write this I'm on a cruise ship north of the Arctic Circle (66° 30'N latitude). My first venture this far north. We crossed the magical line at approximately 7:18 a.m. when I was sleeping. But at 10:15 a.m. on the aft deck level seven we celebrated our entrance into the Arctic. It was certainly more profane then scared and more entertaining than profound, but I'm glad I was there. Neptune made an appearance along with the ship's captain, as did the jolly entertainment master and all round carer of passenger well-being.  After a speech by Neptune, in Norwegian, English and German, those of us with just the right combination of courage and foolishness knelt before the captain or Neptune and were "baptised," which meant having a very large ladle of ice water and ice cubs being poured down our backs. I should note there is no photo of my ice baptism because my wife abandoned the aft deck, where brave souls knelt before captains and gods, for the warm soft comforts of the lounge. I do have, however, a certificate with my name, signed by the captain, verifying that I did indeed travel north of 66° 30'N.

On the first and second nights of this adventure I was fortunate to see the Northern Lights again a first for me. On the second night, the more dramatic of the two, a woman standing next to me, from somewhere south of Manchester, asked, "How does this happens?" The answer is this: the Lights are caused when hot plasma of electrons and positive ions is expelled from the sun and interact with gases in the earth's upper atmosphere (the journey from sun to earth takes about eighteen minutes). The earth's magnetic field drives the electrons and protons to the north and south poles, thus we have Northern Lights (aurora borealis), and Southern Lights (aurora australis), though no one speaks of the later. The most common interaction is with oxygen which results in the familiar green hue. More uncommon is with nitrogen which causes a dramatic red glow. My Northern Lights were a whitish green, but mostly white. I suppose in the first incident it is their beauty that attracts us, but it must also be their strangeness, and perhaps the notion of the sun's odd influence on the everydayness of our sky. A lot of people have the Northern Lights on their bucket-list (where the hell did that phrase come from?). If I had a bucket-list I could now cross off the Northern Lights (hands up if you have the Southern Lights on your bucket-list).

MS NordnorgeI'm on the MS Nordnorge, big enough to be impressive and small enough to be intimate. Either way she's no Love Boat. The cold wind blows around the MS Nordnorge most the day. The crew, unlike the forever beautiful and helpful Love Boat staff, can be a bit tetchy at times. Well, that's not quite fare. The women who clean our rooms and serve our meals are great, willing to talk and laugh at my jokes. But the folks in the more authoritative roles, mostly men, seem a bit annoyed by our questions and our occasional mistakes (Where precisely were we to meet for the bus tour excursion? Oh, not actually on the bus, you say). As a general rule, unless a passenger is a real pain in the ass or causing concern, you don't argue with them. I spent years in a job where the same general rule applied, and while there were numerous times I wanted to throttle someone for being annoying or simply stupid, I smiled instead. Most folks are OK and these folks are on holiday (for which they paid handsomely).

Still, I'm loving this boat ride. The fjords are dramatic and beautiful. The food is great. The being on water gives one a sense of, not isolation, but of being unreachable, which is not an unpleasant feeling.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

The Man Booker Prize and those Damn Americans

The Man Booker prize has opened its doors to all English books published in the UK, which means American books are now eligible. I don’t know if this is a good idea or a bad idea. I suspect it is a less than good, though I don’t know why I say that. In any case, it has been interesting listening to and reading about the British response to the decision.

It was, of course, discussed on BBC Radio Four and to guarantee balance an American and a Brit were interviewed. The British representative implied that American authors were machine-like, and by inference that British authors are organic-like. Be that as it may, most American authors are doing their best to do their best to get by, and many are doing better than just getting by. I would suggest the British representative should read, for example, Denis Johnson’s Train Dreams. No machine rendered narrative there. Her clear implication was that America novels are by and large crap while British novels are oozing with integrity and wonder, that the inclusion of American authors will degrade the Booker prize and, for reasons not articulated, push British authors aside. 

In The Guardian Review on September 21, 2013 Philip Hensher sees only disaster in the Booker prize committee’s decision. Again, he may be right, but I found his argument even more interesting than that of radio interview. He writes: 

When eligibility shifts from the UK, Commonwealth, Ireland and Zimbabwe to English-language novels published in the UK, it is hard to see how the American novel will fail to dominate. Not through excellence, necessarily, but simply through an economic super-power exerting its own literary tastes… 

I am in no doubt that America spreads its cultural tastes, or some might say imperialism, throughout the world. The film industry is a good example. I heard it said time and time again that American movies are basically crap and British movies are basically wonderful. Hollywood represents all that is bad in film, which is why it is particularly galling that British movie theatres show American movies and British people pay money to go see them. As the theatres are filled with American films with only a few British efforts on offer, so it is feared the Booker long and short list, and eventual winners, will be dominated by American authors pushing British writers aside.

There is a slight difference, however, between the success of American films in Britain and the apparent inevitability that American authors will dominate the Booker prize beginning next year (Hensher says: “It will be a brave Booker panel in 2014 that doesn't give the prize to an American novel…”). The dominance of American film is in part due to theatres showing the films and people buying the tickets to watch them. However, the Booker prize long and short lists and the prize winner are not decided by popular vote. They are decided by a panel appointed by the Booker itself. Reading Hensher I got the feeling that the panel would be surrounded by American marines in full combat gear weapons loaded demanding American authors dominate and of course win. Things are so bad because of this decision that Hensher reports that many British authors are thinking they might as well quite writing all together. The Yanks are coming! 

The Booker prize has always prided itself, and publicized itself, as the prize for literary excellence. When one panel said it was looking for “readable” books that were “popular” and were “pager turners” there was an outcry. The following year’s panel assured everyone that that populist blip was just that, a blip. Yes, it is true the Booker can only consider books that are submitted by publishers. As Hensher says: “Of course, prize committees are at the mercy of what is submitted, and the Booker specifically at the mercy of what London publishers think will sell in London.” While true, and here I may be accused of naiveté or ignorance (or both), I’m not sure how this fact leads to American dominance. The Booker has had no problem for 45 years in finding excellent, and sometimes not so excellent, books in the UK, the Commonwealth, Ireland and Zimbabwe to be short-list. As far as I know no panel has ever refused to declare a winner saying no book was found to be worthy. If the next Booker prize panel choses an American novel as the winner, and if that choice indicates American cultural imperialism, then the panel only has itself to blame.

Now, it may be that the Man Booker prize committee has made a terrible mistake. It may lead to a dilution of the merits and integrity of the prize itself; Hensher makes a good argument about how this decision will do just that, citing, for example, the difference it makes when the judges can no longer read the full list of submissions but must have pre-reading panels and split the books up among the panel members. But some of the initial responses to the decision seem like good old fashion American bias. There are a lot of horrible American novels out there, as there are British ones. And there are a lot of wonderful American novels as there are UK, the Commonwealth, Ireland and Zimbabwe novels.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

News Rant! ~ September 2013

John Kerry in a speech on why the U.S. should bomb Syria, referred to France as “our oldest ally” and didn’t even mention Britain. The reason is simple. France is ready and eager to go to war shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. while the British parliament told David Cameron and Nick Clegg that Britain would be sitting out on this particular military action. This has caused all kinds of problems.

In parliament the 272 MP’s who voted to bomb Syria are in a state of panic fearing that their penises, real or imaginary, are shrinking (Note to David Cameron: Now is the time to vote on Trident). There is also grave concern in Westminster and the British media that the UK’s “special relationship” with the U.S. has been forever damaged. I personally think people are overreacting. There will always be wars for the U.S. and the UK that will demand collaborations. Just watch and see what happens the next time the U.S. wants to lead the willing into battle.

In the U.S. there is also a crisis of “naming” due to the surreal flip flopping of the special relationship from Britain to France, namely, what the hell to do with Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast? On March 11, 2003 Republican Representatives Bob Ney and Walter B. Jones instructed all three House cafeterias to change all references to French Fires and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast (I have not seen a report on  French Kissing but I’m sure it was forbidden in Congress). Bob and Walter were infuriated that France had the temerity to oppose invading Iraq, which, as we all know, went very well.[1]

But now, with France Blair-like shoulder to shoulder with American and Britain desperately searching for its manhood, what should we do about English Muffins?!

(Note to President Obama: Since chemical weapons are illegal and you and Mr. Kerry find their use immoral and abhorrent, and since the U.S signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, perhaps it is time to complete the destruction of the U.S. stockpiles of chemical weapons. Surely they are of no use and only undermine the political and moral authority of the U.S.)

£££££££££££££££££

It’s hard not to like Jamie Oliver, our UK food crusaders. He did great things for school lunches, for example. Still, and I know this is heretical, there are times when he can be a bit irritating. Perhaps it is just over exposure. You can’t turn around without seeing his face or hearing his voice or reading about his exploits. And now that he’s become a multi-millionaire, he’s apparently unhappy with the way poor people live, particularly poor people who might have, in his words, a “massive fucking TV”. 

When will the poor learn it is their responsibility to live lives that the rich approve off? Having a massive fucking TV is simply not acceptable, at least not for Jamie. Years ago I went to Nicaragua and El Salvador and one member of our group was a multi-millionaire. She became furious that all those poor people (which meant about 80% of the population) had TV’s and children. Mind you, in those days they weren’t massive fucking TV’s, just little square things with really lousy reception, so maybe they would have been OK with Jamie. But they weren’t OK with, let’s call her, Liliane. And what was with all those children running around, Liliane wanted to know. Surely those people shouldn’t have been having children. And by God she told them so. One member of the group pointed out to Liliane that TV was not only a source of entertainment but also information. But even so, I asked, why can’t poor people have entertainment in their lives? Well, because they’re poor and should be working, Liliane said. But there are no jobs and they can’t claim any land to grow much food or set up a kiosk so TV and sex are about the only things on offer. This went on for days.  

However, I digress. Jamie was also upset this week because young people in Britain don’t work as hard as he did when he was young. Well, here I can agree with Jamie. Young people today don’t work anywhere near as hard as I worked when I was young. I was a massive fucking superman worker, like Jamie. They need to think up a new word for work to describe what Jamie and I did when we were young.

Perhaps it’s time for Jamie to get back in the kitchen,  stop thinking up TV shows and just chill for about twelve months.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Apparently some Israeli leaders are upset that President Obama has decided to go Congress before bombing Syria. Economics and trade minister Naftali Bennett said: "The international stuttering and hesitancy on Syria just proves once more that Israel cannot count on anyone but itself.”

And:

Military analyst Alex Fishman: "If we find ourselves in a crisis with Iran, no one in the world is going to be prepared to move a single plane on our behalf. At best, we'll receive verbal support."

Cannot count on anyone...At best, we’ll receive verbal support...Oh, really?

U.S. aid to Israel runs at about $3billion a year, 60% military and 40% economic. In addition to this direct aid, Israel gets about $3billion in indirect aid: military support from the defence budget, forgiven loans, special grants. While it is probably impossible to accurately state how much the U.S. has given Israel over the years, a good estimate is that from 1949 to 2001 the U.S. gave Israel $94,966, 300,000, or 100 billion dollars (see Washington Report on Middle East Affairs).

Israel has one of the most sophisticated and best trained militaries in the world, as would the Palestinians if we gave them 100 billion dollars. If Israel wants to go it alone, it can stop taking U.S. dollars. If not, then spare me the dramatics. And Oh, yesterday Israel test fired its Sparrow target missile in a joint exercise with the U.S. navy. The Sparrow series is part of a U.S. funded missile defence system for Israel.  

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(My sincere apologies to the American, British, French and Israeli peoples, to U.S. representatives and senators and British MP’s, to chefs and arms dealers, to all rich people, to Barrack Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Bob Ney, Vern Ehler, Walter B. Jones, Tony Blair, Jamie Oliver, Naftali Bennett, Alex Fishman and everyone named Liliane, and to all sparrows for naming a missile after you. That should cover it.)

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

---

[1] “On August 2, 2006 the House cafeteria menus were silently changed back without any announcement. The changes came about by new House Administration Committee Chairman, Vern Ehler, who replaced Ney following his resignation due to a scandal. When asked about his decision, Ehlers responded, ‘It's no big deal... It's not news.’ When asked about his opinion on the "freedom fries" episode, Jones responded, ‘I wish it had never happened.’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

Chocolate, Orgasms and Mama’s Pizza

Several weeks ago I decided to watch an international rugby tournament and turned on the TV to find that the playing field was covered with nine advertisements. That’s nine adverts right on the field. The players ran across a patchwork of different rectangles and squares, large and small, of varying colours with numerous logos and messages. It was incredibly distracting, and annoying. And, of course, the ads were painted on the field in such a way that to those of us watching on TV they looked like they were standing up. I tuned the TV off.

Sports uniforms now display corporate logos front and centre. You often have to search to find the team logo. A while back I tried watching Samsung versus Standard Chartered on the Dove for Men playing field officiated by Emirate. Sports stadiums are named after corporations – long gone are the grand old names like Candlestick Park. While watching a baseball game on TV I was fascinated by how the commentary and advertising were melded together. It went something like this:

Well the count on Johnson is 3 and 2. Ford trucks. They’re tough. They’re the trucks for you. Here comes the pitch and it’s a high deep fly to right centre. O’Conner is at the warning track and its out three. Mama’s Pizza. If you want traditional pizza, you want Mama’s Pizza. As we go into the ninth we’re all tied at 9 and 9.

I exaggerate only slightly. Honestly.

On TV the station logo is now prominently displayed in the upper left hand corner of my screen, sometimes large and in bright primary colours. I guess the powers that be are afraid I will forget the station I’m watching. And if the logo isn’t bad enough, many stations now offer little messages under the logo, usually advertising an up-coming programme. Apparently I have no way of finding out this information. For a third of the time one actor or another has his or her face covered by the logo. Interestingly, when the show goes to commercial break the logo and message completely disappear. If you have ever wondered what your TV station thinks of you, stop wondering. Your viewing pleasure is secondary to self-promotion and advertising bucks.

(During TV commercials I mute the sound, but when I go to the movies I am forced to learn what they are actually about. Unfortunately, I can’t mute while sitting in the theatre. Even though I have paid a handsome price for my ticket, I still have to sit through twenty minutes or more of TV ads.)

Advertising can be informative, of course. For instance, there are particular products that guarantee a female orgasm. If TV ads are anything to go by, most chocolate bars will give a woman an orgasm, as will yogurt. But not just any yogurt, mind you. You have to get that really creamy one. Get the creamy one and I can almost guarantee all women readers they will have an orgasm. And speaking of women in the state of sexual arousal, I have to say cat food commercials are particularly disturbing. The relationship between women and their cats at feeding time is something to behold. My grandmother would never understand, though the cats seem to enjoy the experience.

I was walking down our high street (main street in America) and at a bus stop was an almost full size picture of a very beautiful woman in very revealing lingerie (there was more skin then lingerie visible). I turned to my wife and said something like this:

I really try to be a good guy, to respect women, and you, and our marriage. I try to keep my fantasies in check, remaining as wholesome as possible. But I’m surrounded by beautiful women without clothes. It’s not right that I have to fight getting an erection while walking down the street minding my own business.

Let’s face it. Advertising would almost cease to exist without women’s bodies.

You might think that if turn off my TV and radio and never leave the house I could escape advertising. Of course that’s nonsense. Though my front door almost every day comes advertising. Here’s a little break down:

• Food: Pronto Pizza; Pronto Grill House; Papa John’s Pizza; Domino’s Pizza; Pizza Hut; Charlie’s Ristorante Italiano & Pizzeria; New Balti Tandoori; and Peking Express.
• Real Estate: Ellis and Co; and MG Martyn Gerrard Estate Agents.
• Entertainment: Virgin Media; Park Theatre.
• Travel: Travelsphere – Europe & World Wide; Voyages to Antiquity – Cruises to Classical Civilisations; Mature Traveller.
• Health: Golden Charter; Lloyds Pharmacy –Health for Life; Zumba – Fitness with Julia (Julie is, of course, a real looker); AXA PPP Healthcare – Redefining Standards.
• Insurance: Blue Cross for Pets; Direct Line.
• Taxis: bentXcars; Diamond Cars; Hendon Cars.
• General Services: LondonGadget.com – Same day Repair Centre; LondonTownGardens – Artificial Grass (always looks its best); The Mobile Furniture Company; Rubbishcut – Rubbish Removal; CSN Management Ltd. (building work, painting, wallpapering, flooring, etc.); Sylvia’s Cleaning Service.

And that’s just in the last two weeks.

I’m trapped. There’s nowhere to turn. There’s no escape. If my wife were sitting in a hospital bed breast feeding our new born baby, a private company would walk up and hand her a flier detailing their services. When I turn on my Kindle one advert after another appears (you can pay to have this stop in the U.S. but not in the UK). Advertising is everywhere, intruding upon my life in ways unimaginable when I was a kid. Which I guess only goes to show, I’ve become an old fart. I mean, people watch the Superbowl for the commercials. What’s that about?

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Cancer Care in the UK ~ Structures and People

This week I’m speaking to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer at Portcullis House. The meeting will concentrate on issues around improving patient experience and safety by identifying priorities ensuring that people have a positive experience of care, caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm. Below is what I am going to say to them in the short time allotted to me.

As it turned out, my care from the beginning to the present has been good to excellent. It started with my GP, Barbara Frosh, who insisted I have a PSA test because I had persistent back pain, I think with the words: “When a man your age has back pain that wont’ go away I want him to get a PSA test.” I let the “man your age” pass. She was aware of the ambiguity of a PSA test, but was also aware that there were two kinds of PSA tests: the one we all know about which should be low and the “Free PSA” which should be high. It was the combination of these numbers that made Dr. Frosh send me to the Royal Free. I was lucky. I’ve spoken to men whose GPs will not even consider a PSA test.

My next stop was urology at the Royal Free where a series of PSA tests led to a prostate biopsy. My urologist, Ms Smith, was great. She explained everything in detail, and when it came time for a biopsy she talked me through the procedure and gave me written material as well. What she did not do, refused to do, was advise me during the months I saw her. I made the decision to proceed with a biopsy with my GP and based it on my series of PSA numbers. I have spoken to men who never knew what the numbers meant and received no assistance in understanding them. During the procedure itself, Ms Smith talked me through it beginning with local anaesthetic and kept asking about my pain level. I have spoken to men who had biopsies with no local, little sensitivity to the pain they endured as a result and had no clue what was happening to them.

At this point, things heat up. I met with my oncology specialist nurse, David Cullen, who was assigned my case. His first task was telling me I had cancer. He did so buy looking me straight in the eyes and gently but straightforwardly saying the words no one wants to hear. My first and immediate response was to ask what my Gleason Score was. As I sat with David he let me absorb the news and then began to tell me what was going to happen and handed me a packet of information. This included everything from dietary suggestions to numbers to call for emotional counselling. I have spoken to men who received their cancer news over the phone or in a letter and were given very little information. Many didn’t even know what a Gleason Score was when they got the news.

Next I met with my medial Team: Specialist Nurse, David Cullen; Oncologist Ms Pigott; Urologist Ms Smith. It was with this team I made decisions about the way forward. In a sense, three heads were better than one. I have spoken to men who had no such team and did not have a specialist nurse assigned to them.

Here I need to also say that my wife was present at these important appointments. Early on I was told she was welcome, and that she was. During both meetings, first with David and then the Team, people made eye contact with her and encouraged her to ask questions. I have spoken to men who did not know their wife or partner or family member or friend could be present and had to face these life changing moments alone. They were also faced with remembering the details of what can be frightening meetings on their own.

After meeting with the Team, I met with David for a year of blood tests and at the point I decided, with his encouragement, to have treatment he gave me written material about the various treatments and fixed appointments for me to met with the consultants and surgeons who would conduct those treatments. The assessment from my Team and these appointments were vital in helping me make the decision about which treatment was best for me. And I was informed in each appointment about the consequences of treatments, also vitally important. I have spoken to men who simply were not given information about treatments and consequences and did not speak to the various consultants.

I opted for surgery and I was transferred to University College London Hospitals where radical prostatectomy’s are done. But even though I was then in the hands of UCLH, David was always available to me. After surgery I was released back to Royal Free for post-op care. My experience at UCLH went well and the communication between the two hospitals was good, though not perfect. And again, the surgical team at UCLH was very good at informing me every step along the way about what was happening and what was going to happen. This was done through written materials and conversations. After the operation I was both impressed and moved by the care the nurses gave me.

I am now back with David at the Royal Free and my care continues to be excellent. David has handled difficult and potentially embarrassing issues well. I cannot over emphasise the importance of this relationship, and how good David is. He is, in reality, taking care of me. For the first year after surgery I have four PSA tests and appointments with David, in the second year two tests and appointments, and then one test a year for the rest of my life. At each of these appointments, after telling me the results of my PSA test, David asks me in detail about my progress in dealing with the tricky business of coping with the life changing consequences of my surgery. When I have described this set-up and relationship with other men they are amazed. They are, to a certain degree, left to taking care of themselves.

Eventually I will be turned back to my GP who thankfully knows how important it is that I have a PSA test every year. She knows that while PSA’s are unreliable before surgery, they are vitally important after surgery. I have spoken to men who say their GP’s are not aware of the importance PSA’s take on after surgery, which could literally be fatal.

Now I realise that listening to all this is less than exciting - no laughs and no tears. But here is what I conclude from my experience.

First, my care was good to excellent because there was an organisational structure in place that allowed movement: from GP to hospital; from departments within the hospital - urology to oncology and back again; between hospitals – from diagnoses to treatment and back again to post-op care; and eventually from hospital to GP. Any weakness or break in those links and my care would have been harmed, the consequences to my physical and emotional well-being being significant.

Second, any organisational structure is only as good as the people that run it. About three months after my surgery I was back sitting with David at the Royal Free and I told him that the movement from one hospital to the other and back again went very well. He said this: "It only worked because I kept on top of it all the time and because I have been here a long time." His points were obvious, but nonetheless important. People need to be knowledgeable, skilled, dedicated and sensitivity to patients physical and emotional well-being. They need to “keep on top of things.” And they need time to create the structures and develop the relationships with colleagues that makes it all work. Short-termism and unhealthy competition makes all that more difficult, and it is the patients who suffer.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Selling Democracy UK Style

In the England and Wales, though perhaps primarily in England, the privatisation of the state continues at a brisk pace. While in opposition David Cameron said there is no part of government that cannot be put out to tender. With the help of the Liberal Democrat Party he is doing just that, selling off the state.[1] I cannot find an official, or even an unofficial, list of the services privatised by the Tory/Liberal Democrat government in the past three years, but off the top of my head here is a list of services that have been or about to be privatised:

• The NHS
• The Criminal Justice System – including the probation service, court translators, prisons, transportation of prisoners, the forensic science service
• Work Programmes – job centres, back to work schemes
• Care for the Elderly
• Care for Vulnerable Children
• The Education System – the introduction of “Free Schools”
• The Postal Service
• Regulatory Services – including worker safety, driver and vehicle licenses, identity security, title guarantees, fair trading, consumer protection.
• Parts of Policy Forces – including investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods, detaining suspects
• Ureno – nuclear fuel processor
• Student Loans.

This is by no means a definitive list of state services being privatised, but the issue goes deeper than just turning state services over to the private sector.  Two recent privatisations are telling.

It’s All about Equity not (Necessarily) Public Service

The NHS owned company supplying blood plasma, Plasma Resources UK, is being sold to the private equity firm Bain Capitalfor the cool sum of £200 million for an 80% stake. Bain Capitol already owns:

• Burger King
• Dunkin Donuts
• Dominos Pizza
• Steel Dynamics
• Sealy Corporation
• The Weather Channel
• Brookstone
• Burlington Coat Factory
• Staples, Inc.
• D & M Holdings
• Houghton Miffin
• Clear Channel Communications
• Gymboree
• Sports Authority
• Guitar Center
• Hospital Corporation of America (the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world, based in Nashville, Tennessee and currently manages 162 hospitals and 113 freestanding surgery centers in the United States and United Kingdom)

You will remember Bain, the private equity firm with a reputation for aggressive asset stripping[2] that shadowed Romney during the last U.S. presidential election because of his own assets stripping days working for the firm. Be clear, the purpose of this firm, the reason it exists, is asset management (or as some claim asset stripping. Public service is not a part of its self-definition. From the Bain Capital website :

“Bain Capital is one of the world’s leading private, alternative asset manage firms, with approximately $70 billion in assets under management.”

And:

“Today Bain Capital’s affiliated advisors make private equity, public equity, fixed income and credit, venture capital and absolute return investments across multiple sectors, industries and sector classes."

So what is private equity? Since a private equity firm is buying a part of the HNS we should know. From WallStreetOasis (they should know!):

"...a private equity firm is a firm that attempts to “invest into a company, take a majority stake, improve the company and then exit their investment at a large profit. In order to magnify returns, PE firms make use of leverage (borrowed money) to conduct Leveraged Buyouts (LBOs)."

We might take comfort in the words “improve the company” and that Bain Capital already owns the world’s biggest healthcare corporation. But make no mistake, Bain’s interest are more about equity and exiting its investment “at a large profit” than serving the public. And what is equity:

"[the] act of raising money for company activities by selling common or preferred stock to individual or institutional investors. In return for the money paid shareholders receive ownership interest in the corporation." 

Of course the state can be sold. This is capitalism, which can, and probably does, sell anything and it is not unfair to describe privatisation is the replacing of government’s primary role of service to the public with equity management, raising money, the buying and selling of stocks, exit strategies and large profits. What the Tory/Liberal Democrat government is doing is changing the foundational basis of democratic governance from service to equity management. It seems reasonable to ask what changes are implied and realised when a democratic society moves from a government that serves the public to one that provides opportunities for equity management and profitable exit strategies?

One my think that if the activities of the government is sold to the “free” market we citizens would not be required to pay all those taxes that make possible the workings of government in the first place. Of course such a thought is at best naive and at worse stupid. Taxes are still needed, but in the equity driven world of governance those taxes will be used to subsidise private companies and, as is often the case, protect those companies from loss. For example, the private train companies that run the system in the UK are given millions of pounds each year from the public purse. In addition, the loans those private companies take out are guaranteed by the government[3]. Public funds that were used to provide needed services from healthcare and refuse collection are now used to subsidise and protect private companies that will provide those services. And we will, through public funds, help them turn a profit.

David Cameron(An aside: As an American living in Britain for over 27 years, I have been fascinated, and saddened, by how easy it was for two parties, both of which lost the lasts election and in no way have any electoral mandate, could bring an end to the NHS (once described by Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson as “the nearest thing the English have to a religion”). The NHS is now under a full frontal attack by the Tory/Liberal Democrat government. The legislation is in place, particularly Section 75 regulations of The Health and Social Care Act which states that all NHS services must be put out to competitive tender unless the commissioning groups are satisfied a “single provider” can deliver that service. Every day, there is at least one NHS crisis story in the media. You would think that the NHS is the worse healthcare service in the world run by insensitive, immoral, incompetent people. Public opinion cannot withstand this onslaught and it plays right into the hands of those who claim privatisation will save the NHS. Well, privatisation will save something, but not the NHS as we have known it since 1948. It’s time to say goodbye to the NHS. The Tories won and, I emphasise again, they could not have achieved their dream without their loyal Liberal Democrats bed-fellows voting with them.)

The Undermining of Democratic Accountability

It was announced last week that services for the care of vulnerable children is being privatised. What’s interesting to me here is the small print. The Tory/Liberal Democrat government is eliminating laws that would allow councils to remove a company if it screws up and/or defrauds the people. This is a purposeful and conscious decision by Tories and Liberal Democrats to remove democratic accountability, and this is not an isolated incident. The same is happening with other privatisations.

Also, companies will not be held to any national minimum standard of performance, which removes democratic quality control. This is perhaps most noticeable in the privatisation of education. The Tory/Liberal Democrat government has introduced “free schools” that are set-up by private individual, organisations or companies but are paid for by the taxpayer. Since the taxpayer is funding the schools, one might think that the public, through its elected government, but have some say in the running of the schools. You would be wrong. Free schools do not have to follow the national curriculum and do not have to hire professionally qualified teachers.

Privatisation is not only about selling off the state. It is also about removing democratic accountability and accepted standards of performance, or even the public’s ability to set accepted standards. Privatisation is about creating an environment where private companies are protected but not the public.

 If It Walks Like a Duck

It makes no sense to blame a private equity firm for attempting to make money. I would say that is its primary purpose for existing. Nor is it reasonable to blame a private security company, for example, for making a profit as it provides its service. Making a profit and paying dividends to its stockholders is one of the primary reasons it exists. If you are going to sell your education system or your healthcare service to private companies then you should expect those companies to run education and healthcare like a business. That is self-evident. However, here are a few question that come to mind as the Tory/Liberal Democrat government sells of the state:

• Should firms and companies in the business of managing equity and making profits replace the activities of a democratically elected government? If so, what safe guards should be put in place to protect the public against incompetence and/or fraud?
• Should those firms and companies be protected while the public interest is not? Or, why is the Tory/Liberal Democrat government removing legislation that would allow the public to take action against an incompetent or dishonest company?
• Should public funds, in a supposedly “free” market economy, be used to subsidise and secure loans of private companies?
• Should private firms and companies be allowed to fail? Can they be allowed to fail?

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

---

[1] The Tories, along with the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, lost the last election. The party does not have a majority in Parliament and thus could not be transforming England and Wales without their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, sitting at the table setting policy and voting with them in Parliament.

[2] From Investopedia: The process of buying an undervalued company with the intent to sell off its assets for a profit. The individual assets of the company, such as its equipment and property, may be more valuable than the company as a whole due to such factors as poor management or poor economic conditions.

[3] Some fear the rail companies have over-extended themselves and may not be able to pay cover their debts. If so, the British taxpayer will cover their losses.

Putting Men First: Prostate Cancer UK Staff Away Day

I have been asked to speak at Prostate Cancer UK’s staff away day on July 4^th. I’m planning to say something like this (I speak from memory and this is what is floating around in my head).

When I first told people I had prostate cancer the general response was: Oh, that’s not too bad. All men get prostate cancer. You’ll live to be an old man and die peacefully. It was a bit disturbing. I got none of the cancer perks: sad looks, long hugs, a colourful ribbon, casseroles brought to my door. So, I started writing about prostate cancer on my website. The first topic I tackled: The prostate is a colossal design flaw. Within days a joke was sent to my Facebook wall:

Three engineers were sitting in a bar and one said he thought God must be an engineer but wasn’t sure what kind of engineer.

After some silence one of them said God must be a mechanical engineer: Just look at the intricacy of bones and joints, the interplay of leverages.

No, said the second one, he's an electrical engineer: Look at the complexity of the nerve signalling systems, the finely balanced electric charges and flow, the billions of synapse sparking in the brain.

No I think both of you are wrong said the third: God’s a civil engineer because only a civil engineer would lay a sewage pipe through a recreational area.

So far I’ve survived, but that’s not the whole story. When I got my gall bladder out, I went to the hospital, they cut me open, cut out the gall bladder, closed me up and sent me home in a couple of days. Except for occasional heartburn, end of story. Not so for prostate cancer. There are drainage pipes and storm damaged recreational areas to contend with.

When it became clear that I should get treatment I said to my wife I wasn’t sure I would go ahead. I mean there was the whole thing about pissing in your pants and diapers. Diapers! I called my Man-Diapers. Seemed to help. But eventually I said to my wife: pissing in my Man-Diapers or possibly dying. Man-Diapers or Death.

I was lucky. I only needed my Man-Diapers for a day and a half and pads for only ten days or so. Thank God for kegel exercises. Good news, but next was the tricky business of the recreational area. While the surgeon didn’t cut out my libido he sure had to mess with those nerve bundles which means my penis is on strike. I’ve got to tell you, it’s a weird feeling. And while the recreational area is shut down there’s none of that good old fashion fun. It’s difficult and it also means no fun for the one you love.

Eventually came that fateful day when your specialist nurse told me about solutions for erectile dysfunction. First he pulled at a device that I would cram down my penis to lodge a pellet the size of a grain of rice. He held up the plunger and we both cringed. The second option…And he reaches for a needle that I would use to inject a magic solution in to the base of my penis. I didn’t say anything. There is a third option he said…And he picked up a cylinder that I stick my penis into, few pumps, and there you have it. So, which would you like to start with? I looked up at the ceiling and thought: Let’s see. Jam a plunger down my penis, or stick a needle in my penis, or place my penis in a clear plastic tube. Well, just off the top of my head, on the spur of the moment, I think I’ll go with the pump. Yes, the pump will do me just fine. He pump is for me.

Bad plumping. Recreational area shut down for you and the one you love for what might be a very long time. And blood tests for the rest of my life to see if the bastard cancer is hiding away, waiting to return to grow rapidly or slowly eventually committing suicide by killing its host – which would be me.

Now there are two or three sentences that would enable me to easily and seamlessly make the transition from talking about me to talking about you. Problem is I can’t think what they are. So, I need you to trust me when I say this: What has happened to me, what is happening to me and what will happen to me is intimately connected to what you have done, what you are now doing and what you will do.

When I was first diagnosed a friend whose husband had died of prostate cancer told me to get in touch with the prostate charity. I first did that by going to your website. The website was, is, great. I can tell that because I can actually use the damn thing. Are there any people here who work on the website. Could you stand up. You guys are doing a great job. Thanks.

I then called a specialist nurse. What can I say about you guys? I’m not kidding. Expertise, sensitivity, caring and time. I couldn’t believe I had time. Do you know how important time is? When anxiety or fear is clouding your heart and mind, time is important. Any nurses here today. Please stand up. Thank you. If I weren’t already married, and I weren’t getting old and undesirable, I would ask you all to marry me.

The first nurse I talked to arranged for the Tool Kit to be sent to me. Now I need to tell you I read a lot about prostate cancer and diagnosis and Gleason Scores and biopsies and treatments. I read books. I went to the Internet (my GP keeps pleading with me to stop diagnosing myself on the internet). I even read the John’s Hopkins’ report. The Tool Kit is great. Any Tool Kit folks here today. Stand up. Goodness, I’d marry you all but I’m already marrying the nurses.

Through the Campaign and Policy Forum I’m now getting a feeling for how campaigns are planned and run. The intelligence and expertise that goes into the planning and decision making. I participated in the event at Westminster when volunteers spoke to their MP’s about the Care Guidelines and so had a glimpse of how you plan and organise and educate. I even was interviewed by your communication people, which I must say was the ultimate challenge for them. You’re doing great work.

Now, I bet there are days when some of you come into work and it’s raining and you look up and it feels like it’s been raining forever. You come into work and you’d had a fight with you wife or husband or partner. You come into work and you screw up. You come into work and you just don’t want to think about her; you know you should because her husband just died and hear she is volunteering for any damn thing you ask her to do; you know you should think about her because she is courageous and strong, but you just can’t today, not today because it hurts too damn much. You come into work and you can’t help but think it’s just a job, just a job up against one man every hour, just a damn job and it’s raining again.

I know there are two or three sentences, two or three prefect sentences, that if I only said them aloud the sun would shine and wipe away all the greyness and you would bounce into work knowing that together with your collective intelligence, collective passion and collective creativity, you would win. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon you will defeat the fear, the pain, the suffering the mourning. You will defeat this Death. The problem is I just can’t find those two or three perfect sentences.  

So I need you trust me when I say this: What you do and who you are matters. What you did, what you are doing and what you will do matters. Who you have been, who you are and who will be matters. You matter to me.

At times language can be very restricting. I am left with only two words. They are “thank you.” So from me, and hundreds if not thousands of other men and women, wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, cousins and goodness knows how many friends, Thank You.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Is this the Tony Blair Moment for Five Eyes?

Is this Barrack Obama’s Tony Blair Moment? I define the Tony Blair Moment as:

The moment in time when a valued and admired individual, organisation or company loses public trust and respect.

Blair was, though it may be difficult to remember now, quite liked and respected in the UK and internationally, that is until it became clear he had blatantly lied to us about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to join Bush in a foolish, hubristic and illegal war. To this day he dismisses all concerns about that lie. He has never been forgiven. Now with Obama’s name change floating around – George W. Obama – one begins to wonder if it is his Tony Blair Moment. His casual dismissal of concerns for and challenges to the massive surveillance by the U.S. government, not only of its own citizens but apparently of everyone else’ too, are sadly and disturbingly reminiscent of Mr Blair.

Of course what I’m talking about is Snowden letting the spying cat out of its digital bag. I wouldn’t bet on Snowden’s future, but so far he is giving the U.S. government a run for its money. Did he leave Hong Kong? Did he enter Russia? Is he on his way to Ecuador? As I write this, no one knows. And I must confess it was pleasing to hear that some 24 journalist boarded a plane from Moscow to Havana only to find Snowden wasn’t on the plane. The Guardian had a little fun with the news:

Around two dozen journalists settled in for the 12-hour journey to Havana – a flight on which no alcohol is served, much to the chagrin of the reporters, many of whom aren't used to going half a day without a stiff drink.

In any event, thanks to Snowdon’s revelations Prism (U.S.), Tempora (UK), and Five Eyes (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have entered the lexicon. His revelations have also thrown further light on the Obama presidency. George W Bush enlarged and further legalised the imperial presidency and it was never going to be the case that Obama would revoke some of the powers he inherited. However, not only has Obama embrace Bush’s imperial presidency, that which makes possible Prism for example, he has expanded it. Those of us who could never be accused of naiveté have still been disappointed by Obama’s vast expansion of drone assassinations and warfare, the prosecution of  more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined and now the significant development of the National Security Agency’s ability to spy on U.S. citizens. (If only he had shown some of the same determination when dealing with the Tea Party.) The likes of Noam Chomsky and Core Vidal have been heavily criticized for exaggerating the extent of the continuous expansion of the executive branch. Looks like they were right on target.

It may not only be Obama facing his Tony Blair Moment. All those young rebels in Silicon Valley and Seattle are up to their necks in the spying game. Do no evil indeed. Here is the list of the wonder companies of our digital age that, through legal necessity and/or willing cooperation, are participating in the Prism programme (listed in order of their entry):

• Microsoft
• Yahoo
• Google
• Facebook
• PalTalk
• AOL
• Skype
• YouTube
• Apple.

Add to this list telecommunication companies like Verizon to complete the surveillance holy grail for spying on citizens and we find that our friendly companies can provide governments our:

• Emails
• Chat communications (video and voice)
• Videos
• Video conferencing
• Social networking information and activities
• Photos
• Stored data
• Login histories and file transfers

The official governmental responses in the U.S. and the UK to the surveillance scandal go like this:

Trust Us.

Really? Even a brief examination of recent history would lead the average citizen to be more than hesitant to trust any government with their personal information and the power to collect that information. In addition, the request to “trust us” should  never trump the principles of a democratic society and should never define the relationship between the individual and the state. History demonstrates that that relationship is always in flux and is always susceptible to abuse by the state. And even if our governments were completely and utterly trustworthy, which they are surely are not, that would not justify the blanket surveillance of citizens.

If you are an innocent and lawful citizen you have nothing to fear.

This statement is so obviously absurd one is tempted to pass over it. However, given our politicians seem to think it merits voicing, just a couple comments.

First, the statement implies being guilty is the only reason why one would desire and seek legal protection of his or her privacy. There are any number of reasons, personal, social, economic and political, why innocent individuals and groups do not want the state listening in on their conversations and plotting their activities. But even given the rightness of those reasons, it is a prima facie value of democracy that the state does not abuse an individual’s right to privacy. Our leaders are not only asking us to trust them. They are also asking us to dispense with fundamental tenants of democracy. Innocence should be assumed, even when such an assumption is risky. The risks inherent in privacy and the presumption of innocence do not justify the misuse of state power.

Second, if the above statement is reasonable then logically there is no limit to the amount of surveillance of the innocent by the state can justify.

It’s legal.

First, the legality of the surveillance of citizens should never be assumed. It is not good enough for the state to say its activities are legal. Again, historical evidence suggests that trusting the state is always involved in legal activity is absurd.

Second, it is very difficult to verify the legality of these surveillance programmes because the legal determination is done in secret courts and protected by secrecy laws. Here is how John Naughton of The Guardian describes the Kafkaesque situation we find ourselves in:

State Although intrusive surveillance does infringe a few liberties, it's necessary if you are to be protected from terrible things.

Citizen (anxiously) What terrible things?

State Can't tell you, I'm afraid, but believe us they are truly terrible. And, by the way, surveillance has already prevented some terrible things.

Citizen Such as?

State Sorry, can't go into details about those either.

Citizen So how do I know that this surveillance racket isn't just bureaucratic empire building?

State You don't need to worry about that because it's all done under legal authority.

Citizen So how does that work?

State Regrettably, we can't go into details because if we did so then the bad guys might get some ideas.

Third, even if we assume all or this massive surveillance is legal (which I do not), questions of legality are not the only questions to be asked. When the state, secret courts and multi-national corporations get together we must also ask: Even if the surveillance is legal, is it right?

We are not collecting content but only metadata.

Basically metadata is data about data, though a quick look at Wikipedia indicates it is more complex than that. In the area of surveillance the collection metadata would include, for example, gathering information on who calls whom, where the call was made from and how long it lasted. In the age of computer analysis, this kind of information is more important than what a person actually says. Again Naughton explains it well:

You have a telephone number of someone you regard as potentially "interesting". Type the number into a search box and up comes a list of every handset that has ever called, or been called by, it. After that, it's a matter of seconds before you have a network graph of second-, third- or fourth-degree connections to that original number. Map those on to electronic directories to get names and addresses, obtain a secret authorisation from the Fisa court (which has 11 federal judges so that it can sit round the clock, seven days a week), then dispatch a Prism subpoena to Facebook and co and make some coffee while waiting for the results. Repeat the process with the resulting email contact lists and – bingo! – you have a mass surveillance programme as good as anything Vladimir Putin could put together. And you've never had to sully your hands – or your conscience – with that precious "content" that civil libertarians get so worked up about.

By assuring us that they are not collecting the content of our emails, telephone calls, Facebook posting, websites and blogs, governments want us to believe that we have nothing to fear, that our civil liberties have not been infringed (or if they have it doesn’t really matter) and that they have not abuse their power. This is clearly not the case. And we must remember, that governments have the ability to collect and store all the content they want.

Many claim we are at a crucial point in the life of our democracies. Given that the internet is the nervous system of human civilization and that the state, with the help of multi-nationals and under the cover of secret laws, seek the complete mastery of the internet (their words, not mine), the relationship of the citizen to the state is up for grabs. Some are saying that we are moving from democratic states to security states and there is much evidence to support that. The scale of the data being collected on people around the world is almost unimaginable. The ability to analyse that data is immensely impressive.

Bush was the self-proclaimed war president. Obama is becoming known as the security president. The likes of Zukerberg, Page, Schmidt, Gates, Ballmer and co have been exposed as less the free flowing agents of a new age and more the helpers of government surveillance and the protectors of big time capitalism. Who cares if some of them go to meetings in a tee shirts and jeans?

By the way, if you choose to protect yourself from governmental surveillance, it’s easy. All you have to do is stop using:

• Microsoft cloud services
• Google and Bing searches
• Google Docs
• Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail
• Skype
• YouTube and Vimeo videos
• Flickr and Picasa
• Facebook
• Twitter
• iPhones and iPads.

You will also need to stop using all cell phone. Changing the sim will not do the trick. Your phone has a IMEI number that can be traced anywhere on the planet. And oh, if you have a passport don’t forget your personal information can be read from a distance.

So, good luck with that. And welcome to digital paradise.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Gay Marriage and Church Leaders ~ There They Go Again

Some church leaders. They sure hate the idea of marriage equality. When someone suggests that gay people should have the right to marry, but not necessarily in their churches, they still go all crazy. First they claim that “traditional marriage" is universal, that is throughout all time and in all cultures (this is so obviously not the case I can only assume they are exaggerating for effect, or have not read the Bible, or are ignorant, or are stupid). They then claim gay marriage is going to lead to the destruction of traditional marriage, men marrying their sisters and women their brothers, polygamy (though so far I haven’t heard anyone suggest gay marriage will lead to polyandry, polygyny, endogamy, exogamy, or levirate), people marrying their cats and dogs, and the downfall of civilization. I kid you not. All these things have been suggested by supposedly God-friendly loving intelligent church leaders. The best you can hope from them is the argument of “equal but different,” an argument that has been decimated by people of colour and women some time ago (equal but different has been an old stand-by of oppressors for ages).

The latest round of ecclesial angst was in the Lord’s debate on marriage equality here in Britain. Archbishop Welby of the Church of England, the biggest of church leaders, said the marriage equality bill would lead to the destruction of traditional marriage which is a cornerstone of society. To quote Welby himself:

"Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened…[T]raditional marriage is a corner stone of society…"

Given its importance as a cornerstone of society it is not unreasonable to ask what exactly a traditional marriage is. From the Church of England:

The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture ofchildren, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

It is this institution that is a cornerstone: permanent and lifelong, exclusive (meaning faithful), for the purpose of procreation, grounded in affection (presumably romantic and spiritual love), sanctioned by “our Lord,” which points to Jesus but I assume includes the Trinity (Welby’s comment that gay marriage will diminish marriage as covenant implies that marriage will no longer be approved by God). It is this institution church leaders claim is universal and utterly important for the wellbeing and continuation of society.  So, some interesting statistics on marriage in England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics, which defines marriage as the union of unmarried people (single, divorced, widowed) in the population (there are pages and pages of restrictions and procedures associated with marriage which you can access here): 

• 21.3 men per 1000 marry each year.
• 19.9 women per 1000 marry each year.
• For every 100 married people there are 90 unmarried.
• 15% of marriages are of both people remarrying.
• 19% of marriages are of one person remarrying.
• 42% of marriages end in divorce.
• 2.9 million couples are cohabiting.
• 12.2 million couples are married.
• 38% of married couple families have dependent children, the same percentage as cohabiting couple families.
• 68% of all marriages are by civil ceremonies (meaning 32% of marriages are apparently by religious ceremonies).
• Since 1996 the number of people cohabiting has doubled.
• Since 1981 the number of people marrying is down by a third.

Infidelity statistics for England and Wales are hard to come by. I’ve read infidelity among men married or cohabiting runs from 25% to 57% and among women in marriage or cohabiting from 18% to 54%. The truth no doubt lies somewhere between the high and low percentages.

So:

• Permanent and lifelong – divorce rate of 42% with 34% of marriages having one or both people in their second (or third, or fourth) marriage.
• Exclusive – extramarital affairs being somewhat common to very common.
• Tradition marriage – on the decline.
• Cohabitation – on the rise.
• Unmarried people – almost equal to married people.
• Procreation – difficult to judge; while 38% seems low I did not see statistics for the percentage of married couples who choose not to have children verses the couples who had not yet had children but were planning to or the percentage of marriages where the children had left the home.

What can we say about the society’s cornerstone of traditional marriage? First, the ideal of traditional marriage as a universal reality only exists in the minds of people, and perhaps particularly in the minds of church leaders. I am not saying that the ideal does not exist at all. Clearly there are people who marry for life, remain faithful, mutually supportive, have children and raise them well. But it would be a stretch, when considering the above statistics on divorce and infidelity, the unknown number of people who are unhappy in their marriages, the unknown number of parents who emotionally and/or physically abuse their children, the number of people who do not or cannot have children and the persistent and significant problem of male violence in marriage, to say that the ideal represents what is overwhelmingly normative. And yet, our society continues without major disruption or actual collapse.

Second, given that gay marriage does not exist in the UK and never has, the state of marriage, traditional or otherwise, has nothing to do with gay men and lesbians. It has everything to do with straight people.

Two Important Qualifications:

First, I must shout from the mountaintops that not all church leaders are anti-gay and go utterly ditzy when someone says the words “gay marriage.” Some Christian denominations are supportive of gay rights and advocate for marriage equality. And in denominations that have policies to exclude gay people or in some way render them second class citizens there are faithful Christians who advocate for the full inclusion of gays. Some can be quite passionate about it. For example, Rev. Marcus Ranshaw in the Church of England called his archbishop a wanker for his anti-gay position. On his Facebook page he wrote the following:

“What really upsets me is nasty people such as Justin Welby robbing me of my faith in the church, he does not speak in my name and I think he is a wanker, but I’m not going to stop being a Christian or a priest.”

To say the least, he got in trouble and withdrew the statement from his Facebook wall. While it may have been somewhat foolish to lose his cool on Facebook, it does point to the passion of support for marriage equality some possess in the Church of England. They too make a claim on their church.

More personally, my wife is a church leader, if one can be called that in the United Reformed Church. The URC prides itself on being a conciliar church. I have even heard it said by a URC minister that there is no such thing as individual leadership in the URC – she meant that as a good thing. However, while the URC holds no position on gay rights or marriage equality (when is the last time you heard of a committee demonstrating strong leadership and taking bold actions?), my wife has advocated and preached for gay rights and equality in marriage for most of her ministry.

Second, church leaders have every right to participate in public debate on societal issues on behalf of their organisations and congregations. However, two things are important. First, we need to agree on an acceptable language that articulates a commonly held understating of reality. Books should be, and probably have been, written about this. What is an acceptable common language representing a reasonably held understanding of reality? Not all arguments are acceptable. While the flat earth society may amuse us, we would not allow members' views to impact a debate on the costs and merits of space exploration. However, if the flat earth society were given the legal and social status of a religion, would we then allow its belief system to be taken seriously in the debate?

Also, while church leaders can and should participate in societal discussions and debate, they do not have the right to impose their belief systems and/or institutional  rules on a secular democratic society. For example, some churches do not accept or recognise divorce and will not sanction remarriage. That is fine. No one is making them remarry people. However, they do not have the right to impose that belief and practice on a democratic society that accepts remarriage. Church leaders need to remember they do not live in a Christian theocracy but a secular democratic society that gives their organisations considerable protection and privilege.

A final thought. Given that 68% of people get married in civil and not religious ceremonies, and given that a certain percentage of people (probably fairly high) who do get married in a church do so not for faith and membership reasons but for sociological reasons (only about 6% of people regularly attend church), and given that the majority of people in the UK favour a change in the law to allow gay people to marry, one would hope that church leaders would show a little more humility and restraint as they participate in the marriage equality debate. Unfortunately, that is not often the case.

By the way, the Lords supported the Commons' marriage bill by a vote of 390 to 148 (for the complete run down of voting click here).

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Ceilings of Stolen Gold

St. John's in RomeI visited Rome with a friend who wanders somewhere between being an agnostic and an atheist, but is militant about neither. He loves visiting old churches. As we sat in St. Johns, the Bishop of Rome’s church (meaning, of course, the Pope’s church), admiring the huge high magnificent gold encrusted ceiling, I said to him, you come to these churches with no baggage at all.

Gold Ceiling in St. John'sWhat I meant was that the Christian story and the history of its earthly representative, that is the institutional church in all its many forms, in no way impacts his appreciation of the beauty and grandeur of the large cathedrals dotting the earth.

Roman Senate Doors in St. John'sSt. John’s is impressive for many reasons but three stand out for me. First is the size. It is a large grand structure, and while it is now dwarfed by St. Peter’s, in its day it was the first of the big cathedrals. The second is the ceiling inlaid with actual gold, but not just any gold. This gold is from the first haul of gold stolen from South America by the Spanish invaders. Spain gave the gold to the church as a gift, which the church obviously accepted using it to glorify its house of worship. The third noteworthy feature of St. John’s are the front doors. Not only are they huge, they are the original doors of the Roman Senate. Imagine that. Gold stolen from a peoples half way around the world and doors from the great political and military power that was Rome. In a church.

While St. John’s is amazing, it is put in the shadows by St. Peter’s. St. Peter’s basilica amazed and offended me in equal measure. It is a truly wondrous structure, huge and hugely grand and filled with some of the most beautiful art in the world (it is in the basilica where you can see, for example, Michelangelo’s Chapel of the Pieta). But to say it is huge does not do it credit (the photos here cannot really convey the scale of the thing). I couldn’t help but wonder how it was constructed and at the time it was constructed. And it offended me.

St. Peter's in RomeNot wanting to negatively affect my friends appreciation of the church or dampen his enjoyment of its beauty, I nonetheless stopped him in front of the huge Papal Alter and Baldacchino and said something like this:

This building is offensive because it has absolutely nothing to do with a humble rabbi who told his disciples to go out into the world with nothing and preach good news to the poor. It is the opposite of preaching good news to the poor. It has nothing to do with justice for the poor. This building does represents something to world but that something is not the gospel. It shouts wealth and power. It is wealth and power. If aliens from another part of our galaxy happened upon earth, knowing nothing of the Christian story or the church and nothing of our theology and faith, walked into St. Peter’s they would not say, “Oh this represents the human species care for the less fortunate among them; this building must be about justice and serving the poor; this building must be really good news for the powerless and a frightening threat to the powerful.”

Michelangelo’s Chapel of the PietaNot satisfied I continued:

This building is a symbol of humankinds utter inability to fully embrace and maintain an attitude of and dedication to humbleness, sacrifice, justice for the unjustly treated and the poor. The church started as a radical reassessment of the status quo, of power and how it affects people, of the worth of all human beings, even those who had little power, stature and wealth. This church building represents a collusion with the powerful and elite. It emphatically declares what is important to it. The church could have built a humble and functional building as its headquarters and that building would also have said something to the world. But the men who created the church and built this structure did not remain true to that radical reassessment. What is a church doing with this edifice? What does it symbolise? Yes, this structure is utterly magnificent and many no doubt say it speaks of the glory of God. It does, but not of the God of the poor. Not of the God who challenges power. It worships the God of wealth and power. It speaks to human lust and not divine sacrifice.

(Don’t forget, the Vatican is a quasi-state with representation in the United Nations, a status it will not give up any more then it will give up its tremendous art collection its private central bank, its property and its Swiss guards.)

Papal Alter and BaldacchinoSo, stolen gold that was the beginning of the almost complete genocide of a people. Doors of political and military power. Untold wealth and influence. Amazing magnificence and stature. Welcome to the church of Jesus Christ.

OK. I realise I am not being totally fair. I could be accused of picking on the Roman Catholic Church while other churches also possess vast wealth, power and grand buildings. Just for the record, I haven’t forgotten them. And it could be said that St. John’s and St. Peter’s do not represent all that the Catholic Church does in the world, and that would be true. But they do represent something and they didn’t just happen. These churches, as do others in other countries, represent choices by human agents: to accept the gold and the doors, to spend vast wealth on building huge structures which sit more easily, perhaps naturally, with the powerful.

Interior of St. Peter's Basilica If you were a itinerate preacher telling the masses they have worth despite the evidence, and if you were attracting a following of people to go out and serve those masses, not in power and wealth but in the name of love and justice, would you build St. Peter’s? Well, perhaps not at first, but after the years had passed, someone  probably would. We human beings love building huge expensive, and yes beautiful, edifices to our gods.

Having said all that, if you go to Rome, do visit St. John’s and St. Peter’s. They are truly beautiful and amazing. Just leave your baggage outside the really big doors.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

My Lunch with a Tea Bagger

First off, the term “Tea Bagger” is a derogatory designation for a Tea Party member in the U.S. I use it all the time though I have never directed it at a particular person, that is until now. Now, without hesitation or reservation, I call one, let us identify her as Mary Mary Quite Contrary, a bloody Tea Bagger. Sorry Mary Mary Quite Contrary, no apology.

I met Mary Mary Quite Contrary at a lunch on the way from Rome to Pompeii. Who would have thought? Mary Mary Quite Contrary is from Texas and once it was established I lived in London, England, she asked what I thought of the National Health Service. My assumed negative answer was implied in her tone. However, I told her I thought the NHS was great, to which her face expressed surprise. I told her that over the past decade numerous surveys indicated that over 90% of people who actually used the NHS gave the service a positive rating. I continued by saying that I thought it tragic that the Tory/Liberal Democrat government was changing forever the NHS. How, she asked. By privatising it, I said. To which she said, “Well, yes, because people don’t like it.”

It was clear she was ideologically challenged. After an internal sigh I looked straight at her and repeated that some 90% of people held the NHS in high regard. I wearily continued that the information the American public received about the NHS during their debate on healthcare was a distortion and misrepresentation of healthcare in Britain, that indeed some of the TV adverts were outright lies. For example, there was an advert that claimed that if Stephen Hawking had been treated by the NHS he would be dead. Of course, Stephen Hawking has been treated by the NHS all his life and is still very much alive. When Hawking heard what Republicans were saying about the "evil" NHS and his care he said this:

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Mary Mary Quite Contrary would have none of it, explaining how “they” hoped to repeal Obamacare, which she implied was, like the NHS, an evil form of socialism, or communism, or perhaps fascism, or was it Nazism. I doubt she knew the difference between the four. With that self-righteous self-possessed attitude that can drive a reasonable person crazy, though living in Texas and never having visited Britain, she gave the impression she knew better than one who has lived in the UK for twenty-six years and has on more than a few occasion turned to the NHS, the truth about healthcare my side of the waters. The words “fuck you” came to mind, but remained unvoiced. It would have been terribly rude, though perhaps not as rude as having people dying in the streets or in their homes for lack of care.

I must confess I just didn’t have the energy to get into a confrontation with a Tea Bagger by the name of Mary Mary Quite Contrary so I excused myself saying I had to go to the “toilet.” Americans don’t use the word “toilet,” it being somewhat impolite there. I hoped upon hope that using the word “toilet” would, if  even slightly, offend her.

Well, that was that really. But later after returning to Rome from Pompeii it bothered me that I didn’t speak more forcefully in defence of the NHS. I kept having those damn conversations in my head that persist like a bad but catchy tune. This is what I wished I had said to Mary Mary Quite Contrary:

“I really don’t care if you want U.S. citizens dying in the streets in support of your ideology as you worship Jesus in your rich church, but at least you could argue your case honestly. It offends me the way you use the NHS to support your social Darwinian position. Don’t make your case by misrepresenting and telling lies about the NHS. I really don’t care about your position, but I do care that you support it through distortions or untruths. Have the conviction in your own beliefs and speak the truth. Have some integrity. Do the research. And stop lying.”

That would have put her in her place! If only I had said it.

I learned that Mary Mary Quite Contrary was leaving for London the next day. This is what I wished I had said about that:

“If you are injured or become ill during your stay in London, the evil socialist NHS will care for you as long as is needed.”

Or maybe:

“If you are injured or become ill during your stay in London, live (or die) by your convictions and avoid the evil socialist NHS and seek out a private hospital to care for you. And if you don’t have your insurance papers with you, good luck with that."

After lunch her travelling companion pulled me aside and said, “You’ve meant a true blue Tea Party member.” Mary Mary Quite Contrary of Texas, I can’t say meeting you made my day. Go back to Texas and keep your ideological faith-based nose out of the NHS.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger

Hollywood, Brad Pitt and Me

I’ve received some very exciting news, actually a sure thing, in a voicemail from my publisher. My publisher wants to prepare my book for Hollywood, thus making a substantial investment in me and my book. I kid you not. The message didn’t happen to say which book, however. I’ve published three books – OK, self-published three books – Notes from 39,000 Feet, Alien Love or Thank You Alpha Centauri, and Dis-Ease: Living with Prostate Cancer. Which reminds me, I’m also the proud owner of my very own Amazon Author’s Page. Amazon encourages me to tell everyone about my page in order to increase my sales. So, if you are of a mind to increase my sales simply click here. However, I digress. Hollywood. 

Notes is a collection of reflections and essays on my international travels, so I suspect it is not the book my publisher is wanting to take to Hollywood. Dis-Ease...well, it’s  self-evident what that’s about and trust me it would not make a great movie – though now that I think about it, it could make a great play for the theater. Anyway, I’m assuming Alien Love must be the book my publisher was referring to, and it makes sense. Alien Love is a story about the nature of identity and enduring love set in an undisclosed future of Meisner automobiles, Chinese hegemony, colonies on Mars and the Moon and a migration to Alpha Centauri. Oh, and it takes place in an institution for the differently sane. (My wife claims I set the story in the future so I could rant about George W. Bush in a particular way, but there is no veracity to this libellous accusation. Besides I only ranted about W on two or three occasions.)

Upon listening to the voicemail, I immediately began thinking about who should star in my movie. I have decided that Brad Pitt will  play Pepi. Brad Pitt is Pepito Pusinka Russell. That’s pretty much a deal breaker. As for Dr. Gladstone, I’m partial to Kevin Spacey, though I would consider Edward Norton. As for the part of Laura, it goes we without saying, Sandra Bullock, or if she is not available, which seems highly unlikely – I mean a part in Alien Love is on offer! – I could go with Charlize Theron. Admittedly the part of Laura needs to be expanded and I’ve already begun writing. I’m thinking sex, definitely sex. As for the director, it’s a no-brainer. J. J. Adams will have to be called in. I will, however, bow to expert opinion about who is best to write the screen play, but I will, of course, be named in the writing credits. I definitely will assist whoever is chosen.

My wife, never one to discourage me, was, nonetheless, sceptical and asked how much it would cost us for my publisher to invest in my book. When I asked in return how one could put a price on such an opportunity, she said try. She also said it was fortunate I was a mature author and thus would not be taken in by an absurd sales pitch. Indeed. She had not heard my publisher’s tone of voice - the sincerity, professionalism and urgency. However, at this point in our conversation, not having shared with her my plans for the film, I simply and quietly nodded my head. Imagine, she said, if I were young, hopeful and naïve. It could be heart-breaking. Most certainly it could. And apparently expensive.

My wife, forever my faithful companion, asked if I had called my publisher back. I had not, being a bit busy planning the movie and checking flights to Hollywood. She suggested that I wait for my publisher to call me again, for surely he would given his desire to invest in a sure thing like Alien Love the Movie. Fair enough, I agreed. I’ll wait, I said, making a metal note to check that my diary was free at Oscar time.

So here I sit watching TV, my mobile phone charged and at my side. Any minute now.

Copyright © 2013 Dale Rominger