I could only aspire to be as eloquent as you were in your earlier post. It is simply not an attribute which I possess. I certainly am not an expert on Irish political affairs or history but I have done a bit of study. I have relatives of my own who were quite involved in some of the events of the early part of the 20th century. Rumor has it that my grandfather fled Ireland during the 1920's as he was actually sought by the British and was suspected of being an IRA activist. I cannot confirm that because after all he did not speak much of these matters, and he has been dead for a long time now.
I read some years ago certain works by commentators on Irish history and politics including for example Connor Cruise O'Brien. I found his term and treatise on "sacral nationalism," "the volatile fusion of religion and nationalism" to be insightful and informative. The parallels between the Irish use of terrorism and that of fundamental Islamists are striking. They have similar causal roots. Curiously British policies were instrumental in the nascence of these radical organizations which are (were) not prone to compromise. The Zionists also indulged in the use of violence in order to accomplish certain tactical objectives. The Zionists however (despite propaganda) did not invoke terror and assault on civilians as strategic and fundamental tenets.
I also found that historically the most effective representation for the Irish in Parliament had actually been non Irishmen. I may only have a marginal grasp of the facts and history on that, but that is my sense of these things. I simply must dig out my old college papers one of these days.
As to Socialism in Europe I find it difficult to deny. I recently had a dialogue with a relative from Ireland and we discussed such things as taxes and policies. I was unaware of the difference between gasoline (or petrol) and agricultural gasoline and the random "safety" inspections imposed on motorists. I found a bit of the stories to be somewhat amusing. On the whole though, it appears that the tax structures in the end come out to be close to the same thing in Ireland and the USA.
I lived in Europe on the economy myself a few years ago. Perhaps it all comes down to what the meaning of the word "socialism" is. The government programs are definitely huge as well as monolithically bureaucratic and intrusive. Pat Buchanan's recent book "The death of the West" provides a lot of information concerning the problems incurred when governments become too big. In this country the state and local governments have also grown to gargantuan size.
I happen to reside in Massachusetts which is probably the State which has the most bloated of all local governments. The salaries which public employees are receiving now are incredibly disproportionate to what most citizens earn and there is no end in site. The information concerning your trash fees is interesting. Years ago trash collection was included in most Real Estate taxes. Certain communities began to charge separately fees for trash as well as snow removal and other things. They do this because public referendums have limited the amount that can be levied against home owners for taxes. The "fee" trick is really taking off now around this area. Many of the communities now require similar trash bags in addition to the trash fees. None of these fees are tax deductible which has always been the case for Real Estate taxes in the past.
Another tactic which the tax man has been using is to reevaluate the assessments of properties. This allows them to lower tax rates while actually collecting more money in taxes. This sort of practice is largely hurting elderly home owners who are on fixed incomes. Many people are discovering that they are "rich" because of the value of their homes, but they indeed often do not have enough money to pay their regular bills after the tax collector gets his.
I believe that this forum the FR.com was created exactly to help to curb this sort of abuse by politicians, and the last three national elections are indicating that Americans are wising up to the problems. I often tend to digress when I write and also when I speak. I happen to see a lot of connectivity in issues and that usually becomes evident as this post will demonstrate.
Secondly, while I'm flattered by your appraisal of my eloquence, I must differ with your statement that you can "only aspire" to such "eloquence" - reading your post, it is apparent to me that you are at least every bit as eloquent as I. At least. At worst, I might suggest that such a word might be a wee bit hyperbolic for either of us.
It's interesting to me that you mention Conor Cruise O'Brien, because years ago, his regular column was one of the things I looked forward to every sunday in the Observer (going back to around the time of Thatcher). I always enjoyed his writing and his perspective. I'm sure you know he had been an Irish Minister (I don't recall which post - it was before my time). Although he was conservative minded, it always struck me that he was far more conservative on things Irish than he was on anything else in the world. The view of him I encountered most often in this country on his ideas about Northern Ireland was that he was heavily one sided.
However, I think he was wrong in his assessment of the "volatile fusion of religion and nationalism" in the sense that it was highly misleading. Yes, I think that was the fire of volatility that was fanned by certain interests, mostly British and often for purposes that had more to do with British domestic politics. You probably heard or read about Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) playing what was known as "The Ulster Card" for domestic political purposes. That was actually described pretty well by Leon Uris in Trinity. Yes, I know it was only a novel, but his research was solid and his portrayal of those events, by all accounts I've ever run across, was pretty accurate.
The historical problem in Ireland was never really about religion. In fact, in the early 1800's, Ireland had laws regarding the freedom of religion that were far more progressive than most of the civilized world. And you were right about the non-Irish character of some major Irish representatives for freedom, but I think it would be, perhaps, more to the point to mention that they were Protestant. Even after Collins accepted the British division of the six counties from the rest of the Republic, some of the strongest representation of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland came from the Protestant community.
Traditionally, targetting civilians was not an element of IRA policy either (referring to your comment about the Zionist movements, which discussion might be better left to another time). In fact, if, for instance, you think of the first "Bloody Sunday" in the 20th century, Collins anguished over the murder of 14 British intelligence officers (which effectively destroyed the British Secret Service presence in Ireland at the time), which were clearly military targets. (When I say the first "Bloody Sunday", I'm referring only to the two primary events of that name in Ireland in the 20th century - not, for instance, the Russian Bloody Sunday... it seems that just about everybody has their own "special" sunday.) My point is that there were specific military targets in that particular act of 'terrorism', with zero collateral damage.
If we move forward to the other so-called Bloody Sunday, in 1972, it's important to realize the events that led to it. The increase in British military presence in NI at the time was initiated actually at the behest of the Catholic population, which was begging for protection. (You'll notice that no one ever speaks of Irish terrorism in terms of the protestant movements over the last 50 years.) But when they came, for political reasons, they harassed the populations of Catholic areas, which led to the development of the NI civil rights movement, which was non-violent. On that fateful day in 1972, the IRA had agreed to stay out of it entirely. We can discuss that day further if you wish to.
My overall point is to comment on the first post you made about Irish terrorism, which was pretty condemning and generalizing, entirely out of context. That it became a monster subsequently is not in argument here, but that monster did not spring from a vacuum and there is a lot to be answered for on both sides. I sure, for instance, the use of torture on a regular basis by the British in NI is not something that got much exposure on that side of the Atlantic. I'm not defending one evil by blaming another evil, only saying that contexts are complex and have long histories.
I'd recommend books written by Tim Pat Coogan if you want to gain insight into the IRA, its history and its methods. Specifically "The IRA" and "On the Blanket", though he has written many. From all personal accounts I've run into, from people with radically different takes on that situation, these histories seem to be viewed as fair, unbiased, and well researched.
So maybe, in the end, you'll reconsider your rejection of and shame over your heritage. :-) (However, if you lived here for an extended period, you might decide to reject it anyway!)
You're ancestry to this country is obviously far more recent than my own. One line of the family was in the US in the Revolutionary War - you certainly recall Washington's crossing the Delaware, but you are probably unaware that there was another boat in front of Washington's, which carried the scout - who was my ancestor. (I don't know if he was standing up - I hope not. LOL.)
More recently, it was my father's great grandfather who left Ireland for England, and his two sons, my father's grandfather and great uncle who moved from there to the United States. My mother's side is far more vague, but it seems to be a hodgepodge of German, Welsh, and Irish.
On socialism, I think you're right in that it probably comes down to our definitions of that word. Personally, I don't consider a system with extensive social programs and some level of regulation to be a socialist system if it is essentially a capitalist system and one of private ownership. Furthermore, if we are going to define socialism, perhaps we'd better work on defining fascism also. If, to make a little leap, we want to truly simplify and define communism at one extreme as government control or ownership of business, then we must define fascism as business control or ownership of government. At that point, we'd be heading for a really big argument as to whether Europe or the United States is more reflective of the most moderate compromise between the two. :-)
However, I'm not a political scientist or, as I mentioned, a historian and I run more on intuition and a sense of the movement of things. To me personally, the world entire is heading toward hell in a handbasket in the short term (although I would contend that I'm ultimately an optimist and that things will work out well in the long term - but a long term that will be beyond the reach of our mutual lifespans)- each country/region in its own fashion.
You mentioned Pat Buchanan and his exploration of concerns about what happens when government gets too big. But I'm sure you're well aware that Buchanan is no fan of the current administration, nor of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. And I'm sure you're also aware that the government is bigger than ever (at least in recent times) under the present administration. (But maybe we need to define "big" in this context as well. lol)
I think that perhaps another area worth exploring sometime (which I won't here - after all, this is supposed to be a mere post) is the depression in the USA back in the 30's and the political forces at play at the time. I believe our country came closer to disaster than most people alive today realize. Far closer. And with the emphasis in education over the last 40 years growing increasingly toward technical areas (for which we can blame - or credit, if you prefer - Jimmy Carter, strangely enough, far more than most people realize), I have great fears for all of us in our lack of understanding of historical forces and contexts.
Anyway, I ramble. You said you "often tend to digress when [you] write" and that you "happen to see a lot of connectivity in issues" - well, all I can say is that I do the same and am probably more guilty of incoherent leaps in subject than one would suggest of you. :-) Of course, as a practical matter, this makes it exceedingly difficult to discuss anything at all. 30 years ago, I was told I reminded someone of Camus. As I was unfamiliar with the writings of Camus, he explained that Camus would start out talking about a teaspoon and end up talking about God without ever changing the subject. I could certainly identify with that. As a relatively lazy writer, I'm afraid my exposition is even more jarringly fragmented with apparent leaps from subject to subject, compounded when I wish to address another's similar apparently free association approach to subject.