As the Car Drives

I don't think that I am a demanding person. I understand that I am forced to share this world with other people, some of which are not nearly as considerate as I am. I don't mind that these people exist and take up the precious resources I would like to use for myself.

What I can't understand is how people in the UK seem innately unable to share a sidewalk. Of course, this is a broad generalization, and there are going to be people that fall outside said broad generality. More often than not, though, I find myself forced into the street because four or five people want to walk shoulder to shoulder across the width of the sidewalk.

This seems to be endemic in British citizens, and especially true around the beginning of the year when whole flat-loads of Freshers make their way to and from class. It still early enough where these students haven't figured out who they really want to spend their time with, so they cluster in large mobs to go anywhere. In an attempt to figure out who likes what and who will make a good travelling companion later in the year, these students will engage in conversations. Makes sense, sure. I have also talked when I walk places.

What I don't understand is why these conversation supersede my desire to be on the sidewalk. The sidewalks in Aberystwyth are not that wide, and the streets are equally narrow. At times, the buses and trucks (read: lorries, British) will have to go up over the curb to make a turn. The gristly death that comes with being run down and dragged off by a bus seems to be worse than briefly stopping what you are saying for a moment to let one person pass by.

The second problem is that there are no social conventions in the UK for passing people (which might lead to the above problem). Because America is very much a car culture, pedestrians tend to mirror these things. I took a friend of mine from here over to Seattle, Portland and LA, and when we were walking, I often had to pull her over to the right so that people could pass. It just made sense to me: what works for the cars should also work on the sidewalks. Some more traveled pedestrian paths will even paint the street lines on so that walkers, runners and bicyclists will know to stay to the right.

Driving is not as ingrained in the DNA of the average British person. In fact, of all my friends here, only two have cars. Most people just walk everywhere, or if it's too far away, take a bus or train. My friend Jamie, in his mid-twenties, doesn't even have a drivers license. An American over 20 without a drivers license is assumed to be epileptic, or have some other condition that does not allow him or her to drive. It is more important, in the suburban sprawl and emptiness of rural America, to own a car just to get to places. The sheer size of America doesn't really allow for a nationalized public transportation system. I've lived in a small town (DeSoto, IL: pop. 350), and I would question why I bus would stop there. Plus, where could a bus go from DeSoto that would make sense? There are just too many smaller places that people would go to that there wouldn't really need to be a bus. It had a hard enough time keeping the schools open; paying for a bus service would seem almost criminal.

Still, there is something to be said for ingraining a sense of the "right" side of things so that people have social conventions to rely on. I've lived in some crowded places, often taking trains into the city during rush hours, and had these social conventions not extended from the street to the sidewalk, no one would ever be able to make it anywhere. If I had to step into the streets of Chicago to go around a group of four people standing shoulder to shoulder, I would surely be run down by a taxi.

I might be making too much out of a little annoyance. That is a distinct possibility, and I have been known to make a lot out of people's inability to follow what I feel is an establish social convention. But I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to get out of the way when I am walking up the hill. And if not out of my way, then make a way for me to go through. If this trend continues, I am going to pick up a reputation as the American who scowls at everyone walking up the hill, and plows into groups hogging the sidewalk, forcing them to either bump into me or get run down like so many squirrels on the back roads of America.

Black and White

I was going to write a post about the British snack foods I have grown fond of over my tenure here, and probably still will, but a few evenings back I was struck by a sort of revelation while talking about politics with Jamie and Ollie.

I was told something I found to be shocking - no. It would be better to say that it was one of the most inspiring things I had heard in some time. Without hyperbole. Let me explain: David Cameron has recently discussed the reality of fully legalized gay marriage in the UK, nation-wide. Some backstory: it has been legal for some time for a same-sex couple to bind their lives together civilly under the umbrella term "partnership." Of course, if I lived with a woman for some time and wanted to have similar rights, I could. However, for full marriage rights, you still need to be heterosexual. Or, at least, for now. David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, is looking at ways to fully legalize gay marriage, giving full rites to same-sex couples.

It should also be noted that David Cameron is the Conservative Party Leader.

Let me say that again, because some of my American readers might see that as a typo, when it is not, in fact. See, David Cameron represents the right side of the political spectrum in the UK, and he is looking to remove any legal restrictions that bar same-sex couples from the full rites of married couples. As the voice of the Conservative Party, it could be assumed that his stance is not his alone, but that of the party filtered through their most prominent mouth piece. So, when the UK's version of the Republican Majority Leader is for gay marriage, it could be the majority opinion of the party. It would be like Sen. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, came out this week and said, "Hey America, let's see about legalizing gay marriage." [THAT WAS ALL PURELY ANALOGY. NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT SEN. BOEHNER IS INTERESTED IN LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE; if that were true, then I would have to assume that he had a stroke, or was replaced by replicants].

To be fair, Cameron's statement is not an entirely accepted stance of the right, and some have immediately come out in opposition of Cameron's move [it should be noted that the previous article comes from The Daily Mail, which I am lead to believe is the UK's paper edition of the Fox News Network]. Regardless, a politician from the right didn't see the gay marriage issue as political suicide, and publicly, vocally took a stance (at the Conservative Party Conference, no less!) that will probably pay off in dividends at election time. Of course, people on both sides of the spectrum are skeptical, and this is modern politics, so saying that you are for something does not mean it will come to fruition. But still...could you imagine Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann coming out saying, "Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative." (which Cameron did in the above hyperlinked article). Their popularity would drop, immediately, and the other candidates would jump on them for their lack of values.

Consider the recent GOP speeches given to the Cultural Conservative group. There was a lot done by all the candidates to show that they all stood on "moral" issues, such as gay marriage and abortion. Rep. Michelle Bachmann is quoted as saying, "You won't find YouTube clips of me speaking in support of Roe vs. Wade. You won't find me hemming and hawing when I am asked to define marriage as between one man and one woman." The big question raised here: why would that be so terrible? Why does someone have to be a Republican AND staunchly against one of the most ridiculous issues.

I say ridiculous not because the movement of the gay communities to earn the fully rights of their straight countrymen is itself ridiculous; I find it to be so incredibly ridiculous because it is obvious what needs to be done here: legalize and grant these citizens of America the right to legally bind themselves to another citizen. Anything short of full, legal rights is oppression, plain and simple. In short, being against gay marriage is being for oppression.

Now, regardless of how you actually feel about gay people, whether you find it to be a morally questionable existence, or if you think that it is a disease of humanity that can be cured with prayer, you should be able to recognize that denying anyone rights for any reason is oppressive to that group of people. This is the heart of the matter: gay marriage is not a black-and-white moral issue; it's a civil issue. And if your moral opinions conflict with your civic feeling, I want to see that struggle. I want to see an explanation given to the constituency as to why it is one moral judgement allows the oppression other Americans. If the candidate can't even attempt an explanation, then, to me, this person is too single-minded to effectively run the country.

What is nice about Cameron is that he realizes this compromise is necessary. Rather than making political decisions based on his own feelings about morality (which are not publicly stated), he does what is right for the country: allowing people of all sorts to enter into binding, legally recognized relationships (i.e. not oppress one set of people because they are different).

Now, considering that England once sent it's army to slaughter Muslims in the Holy Land, alternated between persecuting Catholics and Protestants (depending on who was in charge at the time), and chased the Puritans out to America, I find the news that their Conservative Party is pushing a socially conscious agenda clear of moral agendas gives me a small sense of hope. Maybe, with time, the American conservative party might realize that compromise, even of one's own morals, is required to run the country well.

Hopefully...