Evan Rudowski: Web Transplant

Earning British Citizenship

The British Government today has proposed new rules for migrants who wish to earn British citizenship.

Luckily my wife, J, and I got in under the wire a few years ago before the issue came up. We didn’t need to pass any tests although we did have to go to one of the newly introduced American-style swearing-in ceremonies.

It was American-style except perhaps for the giant portrait of Her Majesty the Queen serenely gazing upon us. We were required to swear, or affirm (our choice), our loyalty to her – which we didn’t mind much, as she’s a fairly likable old lady.

Under the new rules, migrants will be required to demonstrate proficiency in the language. J and I have got this covered – we already say “trousers” rather than “pants” and when I am in a traffic dispute I instinctively give the two-fingered salute rather than the raised middle finger of my hometown, New York.

Still, it’s useful sometimes to take on a more American tone such as when a taxi bumped me as I was walking in front of Bath Spa station and the driver said something like, “Watch where you’re going, you wanker,” to which I turned around and shouted “asshole!!” in my most disdainful New York accent.

That shut him up, along with the majority of people milling around nearby. It was so easy to do there in Bath Spa, knowing the odds of being shot at for it were so much lower than back home.

While (or whilst) I’m on the subject: although we are now speaking British English, I have to admit that the term “wanker” merely makes me giggle, whereas it’s apparently quite a severe insult to the British ear. Maybe that’s because in New York “asshole” is on the mild end of the spectrum of potential insults and in that context “wanker” almost seems like a term of endearment.

For a while I did have trouble telling "bollocks" from "bollards." This caused some confusion once when I was driving with my business partner M and I cautioned him to avoid bumping into the nearby bollocks.

I have subsequently come to understand that bollocks are really very different from bollards. In this particular case, it is not all much of a muchness, as the Brits would say. Actually, they’re like chalk and cheese. You may want to look them up yourself.

Back to the proposed new immigration law. The Government wants migrants to “prove their worth.” The Prime Minister -- who may or may not be a wanker, depending on who you ask -- argues that migrants should make a “demonstration of commitment” to the UK. They can do this by proving they are “active” citizens, perhaps engaging in charity work or becoming involved in their local communities.

Let’s hope they do not apply this standard to natural-born British citizens, or millions of people are going to need to be cleared out.

Still, it is true that new citizens are often more committed to their adopted country than natives. They are more appreciative of the opportunity afforded them by their chosen home, and they try to make the most of those opportunities.

On this basis, the new proposals are not necessarily a load of bollocks. Or bollards. Whatever.

When a VC is Untrustworthy

What happens when a VC turns out to be untrustworthy?

My start-up recently held extended discussions with a reputable VC firm. Although we did not proceed with an investment, we felt we liked the VC and we agreed that we'd remain in touch.

As part of the process we of course introduced the VC to our team. The lead partner was particularly impressed with one role we had created and the person in the role. The VC partner told me he had encouraged another of his portfolio companies to create a similar role.

So guess what? About two weeks after the conversation ended, our team member received an email from the private address of the founder of one of the VC's portfolio companies. The same VC partner is on their board. The founder did not name his company, but said he had heard of this team member through "the grapevine," and said they were looking for someone like this person to fill a similar role at his "well-funded start-up."

It did not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this person's company, or his connection to the VC. Since our team member does not circulate much in the sector, nor in the geographic area where this company is located, it seems pretty clear that the lead came from the VC himself.

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought we could assume some level of integrity from the VCs with whom we speak -- or is all fair in love and business? Obviously it would not be helpful to the VC firm's deal flow if they were to be seen as likely to poach from companies in which they do not invest (presumably this is why they clumsily decided to cover their tracks with an email from the founder's personal address rather than the company itself).

You can bet we won't be talking to this VC again in the future -- or do they all behave this way? Is this surprisingly underhanded? Or commonplace?

Barack Attack

How ironic that Barack Obama turns out to be the primary beneficiary of the unrelenting right-wing hate campaign against Hillary Clinton.

As we have seen on the campaign trail, Obama is happy to use this to his advantage by continually reminding us of Hillary Clinton’s “baggage.” How cynical, when he should be condemning these right-wing politics of destruction.

Obama claims to be the candidate of "change" -- whatever that means -- but he is happy to advance his candidacy by echoing the worst of American politics. The many fabrications and right-wing slanders that could not stick to Hillary previously now become reality as Obama reminds us of how encumbered Hillary is by them.

To advance his own personal aspirations, Barack Obama willingly allows himself be the tool that the Hillary-haters use to finally deny her the presidency. He may claim to be untainted by Washington politics, but his deft manipulation of Hillary's supposed negatives suggest he may be a better politician than her.

Many of Hillary's own natural supporters, like this blogger, are increasingly buying into this rhetoric and abandoning her. It's not that they think Hillary is unworthy, they say, it's that she can't overcome her negatives. How sad that they are making themselves complicit in the right-wing hate campaign to destroy Hillary's presidential aspirations. When they voted for Obama for this reason, I hope they appreciated the irony.

Barack Obama claims to possess none of Hillary's alleged negatives, but the fact that he has engaged in this brand of politics should be a big negative to anyone who may be drawn to him. Hillary has run a straightforward campaign. Obama has been the manipulator.

The right-wing attack dogs must be gleeful at how the end game for their years-long anti-Hillary strategy is finally playing out. They will dispense with Hillary, who rightly reminds us how battle-tested she is in facing down her attackers. Instead they will get the young, unproven Barack Obama, who has yet to turn his platitudes into policies -- and with Hillary out of the way they can start unloading on him. Watch out.

Unhappy Meal

We took the kids to McDonalds this morning.

McDonalds is great if you want to eat cheap (good for start-up budgets), fast, and of course the kids love it too.

The atmosphere of the local McDonalds has enjoyed a major upgrade, as described more in this article. Upscale, dark wood panelling; muted, hanging lighting; pop art on the walls; free WiFi – all add up to a more pleasant and grown-up experience, more reminiscent of Starbucks than the McDonalds of old.

And the coffee is not bad either – as well as ethically sourced.

But one thing brought the experience back to reality – and that was the help. Although in the UK McDonalds recently was accredited to offer courses toward A-level degrees or diplomas for its employees, it was clear that any benefit had yet to reach the young man taking my order.

If this boy had been any dumber, he would have been on a bun. Slowly, patiently, I repeated the components of my order to him, and repeated them again, and still again, as he searched for the correct key to press, and then forgot what I had said. I thought I heard sizzling, and it wasn’t from the grill. I could only hope he was hung over from Saturday night; otherwise if this was as sharp as he could get his future was too terrible to contemplate.

Maybe it was my American accent – but how many times should one need to say “porridge” before getting porridge? Apparently the manager agreed, because he handed me a voucher for a free meal after my hard-won porridge finally was handed to me only half full.

There is a lot to like about the new McDonalds, but some things don’t change. It’s still a McJob, and the people behind the counter would probably mostly rather be somewhere else – even if out front we’re all lingering longer over our lattes.

Spare Some Change?

One of the nice things about having dual US/UK citizenship, I often joke, is that I get to vote for lousy politicians in two countries.

This year, however, the stakes are higher than ever. In my native country, the US, the quality of candidates seems exceptional. It couldn't have come at a better time, when the challenges facing the US and the world are so serious.

All of the candidates seem to be talking about "change" -- and after eight years of the Bush Administration there's no wonder the term resonates so strongly.

At times it almost seemed like I wouldn't live to see the day when President Bush and his people were on their way out the door. No I mean really, given their agenda, I truly almost thought I wouldn't live to see the day.

But to be honest, like Hillary Clinton, I was for the Iraq war before I was against it. As my French friend SP recently told me, "Our friendship almost ended over that issue." Come to think of it, the same was true for France and America themselves. SP and I were just proxies.

I went with the information I had at the time and so did Hillary. We were both wrong. Of course, I didn't have a vote in the Senate and Hillary did, so maybe it would have been better if she had been more skeptical. After all, the French were.

Still, it's all well and good for Barack Obama to assert that he was always against the war, but then he wasn't in the Senate when it was actually necessary to cast a vote. To my ear, "vote for me because I didn't vote for the war" seems a little disingenuous coming from him.

Hell, I didn't vote for the war either. Why not elect me?

Actually, don't answer that.

Hillary has worked deliberately and determinedly to put herself in a position to be president. Her views, compared with what we've been stuck with for nearly eight years, are light years ahead. And those of us who are from New York are aware of how hard she has worked as senator. She's taken it seriously, and far more than just carpetbagging, she's worked hard for the state and won admiration from across the political spectrum.

Hillary has done this because she has a political agenda that she believes in, and she wants to put it into effect. How ironic that her historic candidacy, as the first woman to have a real chance at a major party nomination and at the presidency itself, is now overshadowed by the charismatic Obama and his bid to be the first black man to have such an opportunity.

We've gone from thinking that no woman or black person could ever gain the White House to having to accept that only one of them can. Couldn't we have timed this better?

I worry for Hillary, hoping that she won't end up being like this year's New England Patriots, destined for greatness but stopped three points short by the young upstart. I think Obama needs more seasoning, and he has time on his side anyway -- but they said that about Eli Manning too.

And if the real Super Bowl is going to be against John McCain, then as much as I would like to see Hillary have her shot I wonder if it isn't Obama who has the best chance of beating the centrist McCain. Hillary is a polarizing figure, and McCain may draw the independents away from her. Obama's vision of hope and change -- however fuzzy -- may resonate far more widely than Hillary could.

Nevertheless, McCain is one of the first Republican presidential candidates in a long time who hasn't filled me with revulsion. As bad as each one seems, the next one seems even worse. McCain is the first to reverse that trend.

Considering all that, I've voted for Hillary in the overseas primary. If we want change, really, I think she's got plenty to spare.

Tomorrow we'll see if voters agree.

 

Defence! Defence!

American sport seems to be captivating the British imagination lately, whether it's the U.S. presidential election, or tonight's Super Bowl XLII.

Previously relegated to terrestrial Channel Five, which can only reach roughly 70 percent of the UK population, tonight's Super Bowl will air on BBC2, a dramatic indication of the extent of interest here. The BBC website has a helpful guide to the basics of American football, including talk about "Offence" and "Defence."

And there's a local angle; as the BBC has pointed out, two of the players "on the pitch" (that's the field to you Americans) were born British.

Of course here in Bath as in many other parts of the UK the sport is rugby, which many observers (myself included) consider to be more rough and gutsy than American football. Rugby is non-stop, in the dirt and mud, with no padding whatsoever; by comparison, NFL football players seem cosseted in their helmets and padding, with the frequent time-outs, clock stoppages and commercial breaks allowing them to catch their breath.

The one uniquely American innovation, and it's a good one: cheerleaders.

We Americans also like to start our sporting events with pageantry and patriotism -- hence the singing of the Star Spangled Banner (which celebrates the inability of the British to take Fort McHenry, and is sung to the tune of an old British drinking song) -- this year by Jordin Sparks, winner of the British-produced "American Idol".

Kick-off will be in a few minutes, at 11:30 p.m. UK time. As a native New Yorker, I'll be rooting for the Giants to win -- if I can manage to stay awake long enough to watch.

Super Bowl XLII -- best wishes from Britain for a cracking good match.

Who's Mentally Disabled?

The BBC tonight is all over the story of today's awful suicide bombing in Baghdad in which more than 70 people were killed.

The Beeb is particularly playing up the angle that the female bombers were "mentally disabled," leading tonight's ten o'clock news with the story.

The New York Times isn't so sure, noting that:

Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem al-Ezzi, a senior officer in the Ministry of Interior police commandos, said officials at the Ghazil market had scrutinized the suicide bomber’s head and concluded that she had Downs Syndrome. However Iraqi officials have made similar claims in the past, and other witnesses said her head could have been distorted by the blast.

My question for the BBC is: aren't all suicide bombers, by definition, mentally disabled?