Leno's comment on Irish PM not the real issue

Jay Leno referred to Taoiseach Brian Cowen (Ireland's Prime Minister) in his September 22 monologue and, well, it's a big deal here despite the fact that Leno is not all that well known in Ireland. During the segment (seen here) Leno showed a picture of Cowen and asked the audience if the man in the picture was a "bartender, politician or comic." At the end Leno remarked that it was nice to know that America hasn't cornered the market on drunken morons in politics.

This Leno piece was clearly inspired by that interview, which was the source of the last big brouhaha to hit these shores.

Irish people are mostly embarrassed that the Taoiseach was featured in such a manner, one that reinforces a long held stereotype about Irish people. Some are even concerned - again - that those movers and shakers in the world of business and finance will hold this against us and cause us even more financial pain.

Last night Ireland's most po-faced commentator, Vincent Browne, asked the question, "Does Jay Leno's remark damage Ireland?" Browne definitely thinks so. I'm doubtful, not least because Americans are more used to Leno's use of such caustic humor and every American politician of note has been zinged by Leno at times.

As for Browne, he is a very serious gent. Even when he smiles or laughs it's to make a serious point. Even among those who like his views, and that does not include me, I would doubt many would want to spend many leisure hours in his company. He gives off a dull, tiresome vibe. (He could be great fun in private; I have no idea.)

I think we can safely assume that the bond traders don't give a hoot whether Brian Cowen socializes a tad excessively and foolishly allows himself to be photographed during one of these social occasions. From all that I know about bond traders, many of them are not above indulging at the occasional social outing. I am sure many of them would have seen that picture and thought, "Hey that Cowen's all right." Furthermore, as I said two weeks ago, I doubt decisions of direct investment will be affected by Leno's short segment.

However, there's also a possibility the picture of the Taoiseach clearly having a good time might appeal to some Americans, encourage them to visit, which is not to be sneezed at on a day when plans to increase tourism numbers was announced. The economic impact of Leno's remark will be, I'd assume, near to zero, but possibly slightly positive.

As for the stereotype, well that's a little trickier. The people of Ireland have a strange relationship with their image as drunks: they can get offended when someone in the non-Irish media makes mention of it (e.g. Leno), but at the same time it seems that most people here almost take pride in the nation's reputation for drinking.

I'm not just talking about undergraduate or pub talk either. I've heard people discuss the country's drinking on morning news programs as if it's a positive, as if it's just a bit of amusement and "isn't it great to be the world leaders in something." I've always found that strange.

Drinking too much, too young is a big problem here. That's the question that should be asked: are we too comfortable with drinking and drunkenness? Are we steering our young people down the wrong path with our ease with the overuse of alcohol?

Stereotype or not, that is the real problem here, not something said by Jay Leno about the Taoiseach.

Ireland voted away "anchor babies" in 2004

In June 2004 the Irish people voted to amend the Constitution to change the laws on citizenship and eliminate the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in Ireland. I would have completely forgotten about that vote if I hadn't been seeing so much comment on the so-called "anchor babies" in the American media, including from Niall O'Dowd of these parts.

When the votes of that referendum were counted, 79% of the electorate approved the 27th amendment to the Irish Constitution (see article 9.1) and ended Ireland's "anchor baby" issue.

The campaign wasn't all that contentious (or it would have been more memorable). The two biggest parties were in favor of the change, but some of the smaller parties were opposed and there was some debate in the media and we had the usual election poster slogans to try to energize the voters.

In the early years of this decade there were many stories in the media about "non-national" women coming to Ireland to have their babies here in order that their babies have Irish (and, thus, EU) citizenship. We didn't have the phrase "anchor baby" – "maternity tourism" was tossed around a bit – but the basic premise was the same: women were coming to Ireland to have babies so that they could stay in Ireland or any other EU state.

During the campaign leading up to the vote the Minister for Health referenced these well-known anecdotes when he implied that "maternity tourism" (and not government mismanagement) was the reason our national health system's maternity facilities were so stretched. Those leading the 'No' campaign asserted that there was no facts or figures to back up any of the "maternity tourism" claims, but the general impression stuck.

The 'No' side claimed that racism was at the core of the 'Yes' campaign. This caused Brian Cowen, then the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to reply that some of those in the 'No' campaign were "congenitally incapable of dealing with this issue without losing their head."

In addition to those direct arguments, there were hints and opaque references to possible tensions with Britain thanks to our liberal citizenship laws. We heard that refugees and illegal immigrants resident in Britain were flying to have their babies in Belfast, which automatically entitled the baby to Irish (& EU) citizenship, something not available to them in Britain.

Given all the talk in America about this "anchor baby" issue, that might be the most interesting aspect of the Irish experience. Prior to the 2004 referendum, Ireland was out of line not only with the United Kingdom, but with every other member of the European Union.

However, thanks to that June 2004 referendum Ireland's citizenship laws are now consistent with those in all EU member states. That is, no EU country automatically grants citizenship to those born within its boundaries. There are no longer any EU "anchor babies."

Pictures of election posters from the Irish Election Literature Blog.

Baseball in DC won't last

I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago and went to see the Nationals. I love going to baseball games and I knew I wouldn't be able to see the Mets this summer for the first time in years (and it doesn't look like they'll be drawing me back in late October for any big games) so I was looking forward to this one.

The Nationals have a new ballpark and it's nice, I guess. There's a part of me that recoils at the shopping mall/food court model of modern stadiums. I've been to Citi Field in New York and Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia and those are nice stadiums too. Actually, both of those are better than Washington's park, but maybe only marginally so.

Washington has its nice new stadium and, from what I can see, a team on the rise. The Nationals have a core of good, young talent and more on the way. The future is rosy for the Nats.

Or is it?

They have everything going for them - except their fans. In fact, I doubt Washington has many fans at all.

The game I went to had almost a full house because Stephen Strasburg was supposed to pitch, but he was injured and replaced by a spot starter. The crowd booed the starter. Loudly.

Okay, they were disappointed. I was disappointed too, but I didn't boo. And, if you're a fan of the team you still root for the team to win - that means rooting for the replacement if a star can't play.

That was only a small thing, but it was indicative of what the Nats' have in DC. Strasburg is clearly the crowd favorite even though he's done very little. It was pretty obvious that Ryan Zimmerman is playing second fiddle to Strasburg even though Zimmerman has been with the Nationals since their first year and he's young, an excellent ballplayer and a legitimate star. Yet, the Nats fans are all about Strasburg.

This focus on a pitcher you've seen, what? - four or five times?, rather than an established hometown (Zimmerman's from Virginia) star is a sign of a phoniness and a fickleness among the Nats' so-called fans, whose interest will pass quickly and leave the team with virtually no fan base.

Want more evidence? By the end of the 6th inning the stadium was way more than half empty - on a night when a stand-in starter and the bullpen had the Nats in front of the first place Braves 3-0. {I took this picture just after the 3rd out in the bottom of the 6th. Those fans are all heading for the exit.}

Strangely, the crowd arrives early, very early. We got there more than an hour before the first pitch and the place was buzzing. The Nationals announced that the first 10,000 fans through the gate would get free tee shirts, but they were all gone when we entered. (I should note here, that when the announcer asked the fans to wave their shirts it looked like 2-3000 people had shirts and not the 10,000 who should have had them.)

Yeah, they get there early because, I think, it's the place to be. Yet, the place to be seemed to be not so much in the seats, but walking around, sampling the various concession stands, etc. In fact, the Nats' fans seem to spend as much time out of their seats as in them despite the fact we had beautiful weather and it was an excellent game with a home team victory in the offing.

Of course you can read too much into one experience, but the one impression I left with is that compared with New York or Philadelphia, this team, in fact baseball itself, is just a fad in DC. I really doubt that franchise will be there in 10 years.

Where did Jihad Jane plot suspects marry?

Something's bothering me. Where did Jamie Paulin-Ramirez get married?

You might remember Jamie Paulin-Ramirez. On April 2 Paulin-Ramirez was arrested in Philadelphia after she arrived on a flight from Ireland. Paulin-Ramirez had been arrested and released in Ireland in March in conjunction with the so-called Jihad Jane plot. Paulin-Ramirez is a Muslim convert, but not Jihad Jane, which is a pseudonym allegedly used by fellow American, Colleen LaRose.

Paulin-Ramirez {photo} is from Colorado and according to the federal indictment against her Paulin-Ramirez left America last September, around the 12th. She arrived in "Europe" the following day and Paulin-Ramirez "married CC#2, whom she had never before met in person." (CC#2 is unidentified in the indictment, but it seems pretty clear CC#2 is Abu Nabil Charaf Damache or, sometimes, Ali Charaf Damache.)

Nowhere in the indictment does it say that Paulin-Ramirez traveled to Ireland on September 12. Only Europe is mentioned. However, Paulin-Ramirez's mother Christine Holcomb-Mott says her daughter "went to Ireland" with her young son.

Given that Damache was living in Waterford at the time and that Paulin-Ramirez was living in Waterford when she was arrested in March it seems likely that she did, in fact, come directly to Ireland from Colorado last September. That would also mean, if the indictment is accurate, that Paulin-Ramirez married Damache in Ireland that same day.

Yet, under Irish law that should not have been possible. Irish law mandates that couples intending to marry must present themselves to the Registrar three months before the wedding date. This applies to any marriage, whether it's a civil ceremony or religious rite.

For a while I figured that the indictment had to be wrong. Some of the Irish media referred to Paulin-Ramirez as Damache's "partner", which could have meant that the two were not legally married. However, this week's Waterford News & Star carries a letter from Damache written in a "detention center" in which he refers to Paulin-Ramirez as his wife.

So, I ask, did the two get married on the day Paulin-Ramirez arrived in Ireland? If yes, how could that be?

I don't think it can be a case of the two marrying in Islamic law, but not legally in Irish law. "There is at present no provision for the civil registration of Muslim marriage ceremonies solemnised in the State," according to this web page from an Irish government body. And if the marriage was not legally recognized in Ireland I doubt the federal authorities would have used the word "married" in the indictment.

I can only speculate, but I would guess that they found a sympathetic civil Registrar, one who was willing to overlook the law on the three months notice. Maybe he (or she) was duped, lied to or bribed. I don't know.

Or maybe he (or she) was uneasy at the thought of saying 'No' to these people from a religious minority. Even though that might sound far-fetched, offending minorities in today's Ireland is what spitting on a Catholic priest would have been in the 1950s - not so much a legal offense as a social crime of the highest order.

All of this might seem a very minor point, but I think it hints at a bigger issue. Why Ireland? Why did Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, a woman who the federal government claims wanted to move to Europe to "to live and train with jihadists," come here to live?

'Say nothing' culture makes Ireland an Islamic extremists' safe haven.

Kids don't learn American history in Ireland

Sometimes I forget that my children don't learn American history in school. Makes sense, of course, that in Ireland the schools focus on Ireland's history and not America's. It's just that I forget at times.

I tend to realize this most when we visit places that are important in American history. I find myself answering questions on the basics, the types of things Americans learn and absorb from a young age.

I try to compensate for this short-coming in their learning by talking to them about American history whenever the opportunity presents itself, such as the trip to West Point. And I like to seek out places of American historical interest to visit.

I grew up near Saratoga and Lake George (French & Indian War) so we've been to those places. We've also gone to Philadelphia, Boston, Fall River, MA (Battleship Cove - my son loved it) and a few other places. Also, we have been to a couple of places that most Americans never get to - Bastogne in Belgium (Battle of the Bulge, WWII) and the area around Chateau Thierry in France, where the American army was involved in WWI.

However, I don't remember ever buying them any books that might help spark the interest in American history and I'm learning that this might have been a big mistake.

While we were in America last week my brother gave my son a gift of a book called 'Chasing Lincoln's Killer' by James L. Swanson. It must be a tremendous book because my son can't stop talking and asking about Lincoln and his assassination. The questions are coming at me morning, noon and night.

"Is Ford's Theater still there? I understand why they wanted to kill the Vice President, but why did they want to kill the Secretary of State? Is Secretary of State Seward's home still there? Booth had to fool the army guards on the Navy Yard Bridge to get out of Washington. Is the Navy Yard Bridge still there?" Unfortunately, my answer to all of the questions has been "I don't know." {Google has since answered them for me, other than the one about Secretary Seward's house.}

And boy does he ever want to visit Washington (and any place connected to Booth's escape route and Richmond, Appomattox, Fredericksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, etc.). I haven't been to Washington since I was there in '95 for a wedding. My last proper visit - seeing the sights and so on - was in 1990.

Now I'm feeling guilty that my teenage daughters haven't been, almost as if I've neglected my duty as an American parent. I'll have to figure out how to get them to Washington (and a one or two other places in the area) for a few days. In the meantime I will definitely keep my eyes and ears open for more books that might interest my children in the story of America. All suggestions are welcome.

Irish media obsessed by America's guns

Irish people are both horrified and fascinated by America's gun laws, or as it's generally put, 'America's love of guns.' Therefore, no Irish journalist who goes to America for any period of time can resist the lure of guns and those who own them.

Generally speaking all of what's known as 'red state America' has this effect on Irish journalists, but the guns are the most attractive.

Case in point: on Monday night Ireland's national television channel, RTE, aired the first part of a two part documentary chronicling their Washington correspondent's first year in DC. During the hour long program Charlie Bird had a number of discussions on guns, including a longish chat with a group of hunters in West Virginia.

These guys were right out of central casting for a program on second amendment devotees. They seemed like nice enough men, rural people with no interest in having the central government dictate to them how they should or could live their lives. Their interests are not mine, but I wasn't shocked by them. Bird (photo - right) looked and sounded incredulous as he spoke to them.

In some ways I can understand it. Irish people are very America-focused. American culture and news from America are a constant.

The gun laws here, however, are very tight, which makes of the lax laws in America of great interest. Very few Irish people own guns and those who do have to obey strict guidelines on where they can store and use their weapon. {Legal} Handguns are unheard of. Just adds to the sense of mystery, that America is a place everyone knows, but nobody understands.

Regardless Charlie Bird's program was good tv. Near the end of his chat with the hunters Bird asked them if they would use their guns to protect their families. The 'Yes' answers were predictable, but when one of the men stopped Bird to ask him if he would use a gun to protect his family Bird hesitated and looked a bit taken aback when he realized the answer was 'Yes.'

{I don't know if the program will play outside Ireland, but I doubt it. Here's the link if you want to try.}

Three American soldiers buried in British WWI cemetery

As you know if you've been coming here regularly I love visiting the WWI sites around Ieper (Ypres), Belgium and northern France. I was back there last week, visiting cemeteries and experiencing the region in winter. It was pretty cold and the thought of living in a trench in such weather is way below unappealing.

One of the planned stops on the tour was Lijssenthoek Cemetery, which is near Poperinge, Belgium. It's a British Commonwealth cemetery, but as soon as I walked through the gate my eyes were drawn to a sight I hadn't expected: three graves with American and Belgian flags.

Three Americans buried in a Commonwealth cemetery with 10,000 graves. Why? Who were they?

Although most of my interest in WWI has centered on the Irish involvement, the American in me couldn't ignore what I was seeing. I noted the names of the three men and went looking for their stories over last weekend.

One of the graves was Sergeant David Stanley Beattie, who was killed on August 31, 1918. He was from Troy, NY, which is not far from where I grew up. His regiment - the 105th Infantry - was one of the first American units in Belgium. He was killed on August 31, 1918 and buried in Lijssenthoek, but at his family's request he was left in Lijssenthoek and not moved to an American cemetery.

Lieutenant James Pigue from Tennessee is also buried there. He was killed on July 18, 1918, presumably leading his men out of the trench. In 1921 Pigue's father traveled to Belgium to visit the grave and after being assured by the British authorities that they would "care for the grave in perpetuity" he asked that his son's body not be disturbed.

The third grave was Pfc Harry King and his story was the most intriguing, but also the saddest because inscribed on the gravestone was, "Best of Sons and Brothers, Also Reggie Buried Close By." I couldn't see any other American graves and didn't know what to make of that bit about his brother Reggie.

However, it turns out Harry was originally from England and emigrated to America. His brother also left England, but for Canada and they both ended up in the war and both died. (Harry of pneumonia, Reggie killed in action). Their mother asked that Harry's body be moved from the American Meuse Argonne Cemetery to Lijssenthoek so that the two brothers could be together again.

What a clunker!

Posted by TheYank at 8/11/2009 5:30 PM EDT

The Clunker Law.

Back in the 90s Ireland had its "Scrappage Scheme", which was basically an Irish version of the Clunker Law. Only the Scrappage Scheme operated differently and was much less of a talking point.

I can't remember the details now, but car owners were encouraged to upgrade from old to new with £1,000 of government money. The government hoped to encourage people to trade in old 'bangers' for newer cars and, consequently, make the roads safer. I don't think the environment was much more than a passing interest in the Irish law and the

The environment didn't figure - not that I remember anyway - and I don't think the car industry was much of a factor either (there is not auto manufacturing in Ireland). The argument was that too many people were driving cars that were too old and unsafe so the government provided an incentive for people to upgrade. I remember little or no objection to the law. And little discussion.

That's why I'm enjoying the whole Clunker Law thing so much. Americans love talking about cars. I don't think I've gone an evening during my ten days in America without hearing about the Clunker Law. I even overheard two men talking about it at the Met game last Wednesday. (The Mets themselves are clunkers and should be traded in!)

Maybe it's only the people I've been talking to, but it's amazing how much conversation is about the Clunker Law. I haven't met anyone who thinks the law is a good idea, even though two of the people I've spoken to have taken advantage of it and others are considering it. And a radio discussion on a local station was almost entirely negative. I'm sure there are arguments in favor, but I haven't come across them yet. Maybe if I was visiting Detroit rather than upstate NY ...

Most of the complaints I've heard center on:
perfectly good cars are being junked;
the law rewards those who in the past bought gas-guzzlers and ignores those who bought environmentally-friendly cars;
it will provide a temporary boost to the car industry, but one that will fade away quickly;
those who sell used cars will lose out;
people only have so much money and what people will spend on new cars will not be spent on new, (mostly) American-made, more energy-efficient fridges, washing machines, dishwashers, etc.
To be honest, I don't really care, but I'm enjoying it. It's just a real piece of Americana. Changes to health care and tax laws are one thing, but when the American's car is in the mix, well, it's a big deal.

What a difference a year - errr - 28 years can make

My daughter finished her leaving cert and has now gone to America - to my parents - for the summer. She wanted to get her driving license so that she could get around while there, but that's not as easy these days as it was back in my day. You have to pass a "mandatory pre-licensing course" now. That wasn't case when I was new to the road. You got your permit, did some learning and practicing and when you were ready you made an appointment for a test. If you passed that was it. No MV-285 or whatever it is was required.

The only way my daughter could take that course this summer would be if she were willing to tell her employer that all mornings are now out. She's not prepared to do that, which means she'll need a ride to work. Oh well.