You may have already seen Henry's pictures in the gallery.  If not, take a look.

My mother and I had always said that Henry would outlive the entire family, and he certainly gave it his best shot.  Luckily, his health declined quickly, so he did not suffer needlessly.

When he reached the end of his journey with me, it was devastating.  He had been a companion for such a long time, and he was truly a friend — always there, always faithful, always loving.

Needless to say, I cried like a baby when I had to take him in and have him put to sleep.  It was the best thing for him, though, as he had grown quite old and was beginning to suffer.

I am quite compassionate when it comes to animals, so I cannot see one suffer or deal with a poor quality of life.  I will always do what's best for my pets.

I was so emotionally distraught the morning I was taking him in that I needed to somehow quantify my feelings before they got out of control.  The result was a simple web page that expressed how I felt and provided a simple outlet for the raw emotional trauma I was experiencing.

Remember that this was my first web page, so don't expect bells and whistles.  In honor of Henry and the many wonderful years he shared with me, I've put the page back up on this site.  If you're interested (and before I boohoo all over again), you can see the page by going here.

Note: The term "henchmen" refers to all of the teachers, guidance counselors, principals, and anyone else in the state of Maine (or anywhere else) who have been involved with this travesty or any other activity like it.

As military personnel are deployed across the globe, leaving their children behind in the care of others, it is up to us to support those children in any way possible.  Their parents are going off to protect our country, our freedoms, and our rights, so in turn, it is our responsibility to protect the children left behind.  They are already suffering emotional and psychological distress in response to a parent being deployed and risking their life to protect this country.  I would call this common sense if not for the brainless assholes in Maine who, according to news reports and complaints from parents, are verbally and, dare I say, emotionally abusing these children in light of their parents serving in the US military.

I will refrain from using the term "educators" in this article, as that word no longer applies to these people.  After you read this story, I think you'll agree that these impertinent, chronically dissatisfied, impotent people are abusing the children of our military when they need our support the most.

Through recent news reports on the web (try The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, FOXNews, WorldNetDaily, Soldiers for the Truth, and The Washington Times for just a few examples), on television, and in a myriad of other places (email and radio, for instance), I have become aware of a reprehensible, abhorrent, offensive, and truly malicious (dare I say evil) abuse that is being perpetrated on the children of our military personnel.  This is more than political activism, and it certainly must be stopped.

It seems, if one takes all of the reports at face value, that some members of the teaching profession in Maine have decided that their political motivations and ideas are so important that emotionally and psychologically abusing children is an acceptable outlet.  The specifics appear to be that the children of deployed military personnel are being told, in front of their classes and other students, that their parents are immoral and/or unethical for being involved in any possible war with Iraq.

Considering these children, the youngest being seven years old, are already traumatized by losing a parent to military service, it is despicable and reprehensible that anyone would add to that emotional pain by saying anything negative about their parents.  The reported incidents include references to children coming home crying after such abuse, exhibiting signs of increased stress and emotional trauma, and being terribly upset.

Despite my disbelief, this appears to really be happening in Maine, and it doesn't appear to only be teachers involved.

Reports indicate that the perpetrators of these heinous acts, out of more than 30 documented incidents, include teachers, guidance counselors and principals.  WTF are they smoking in Maine that makes these idiots think that such behavior is acceptable or tolerable?  Oh, wait, I think the answer to that would be whatever the state commissioner of education, J. Duke Albanese, is jacked up on.

It seems that Mr. No-Balls Albanese has gone so far as to lie about the incidents to local news sources, clearly stating that there were only three anecdotal claims of such activities mentioned to him by Adjutant General Joseph Tinkham.  When asked about the very same information, General Tinkham provided more than anecdotal claims.  The same information shared with Albanese included more than 30 documented incidents, including names, locations (schools), and dates.  Further investigation showed that the reports had come in from 12 different schools across the state by the time Mr. Albanese began distorting the facts.

General Tinkham went on to say that the complaints and reports about "insensitive" members of the Maine educational system are steady and consistent.

It appears that Maine's state commissioner on education felt it appropriate to lie about the facts — and this adds yet another distasteful and unforgivable act to the growing list of wrongs being done to the children of Maine.

Albanese eventually sent a letter to all of the schools in Maine with instructions to be more "sensitive" to children with parents in the military and to present both sides of the argument regardless of personal views.  Despite his own delusions to the contrary, the letter was less than a reprimand, took no action to correct the abuse that had already taken place, and provided nothing more than a "cover your ass" document for Albanese himself.  Given his record on this thus far, it seems perfectly clear to me that he advocates this type of child abuse (anyone who didn't would take immediate and authoritative steps to halt any further abuse and to ensure that the offenders were removed from any position that would allow them to continue to abuse these children).

There are many facets of this story which are upsetting.  Anyone who would traumatize a child for any reason by verbally attacking their parent(s) is inhuman and deserves to be treated as such.  Anyone willing to attack a child in this manner because their parent serves in the military is a traitor.  Anyone willing to verbally assault a child like this only after their parent has been deployed for military service is a hypocritical coward who deserves nothing less than the maximum penalties for emotional abuse of a child, psychological abuse of a child, treason, and any other crime that may fit what can only be described as the malicious intent to cause harm to a child while verbally pummeling those who fight for our freedoms.

I have always been and will always be a strong believer in and advocate of First Amendment rights to free speech.  I would guess that the perpetrators of these crimes have decided that those who risk their lives to protect that right are unethical people who should be attacked, and that the children of those serving to protect us are easy targets for such attacks.

There are so many things I would like to say to these people, but I try diligently to keep this site at a less than offensive level, so I will not question their ancestry, the involvement of certain farm animals in their direct lineage, their apparent hatred of children, and the inapplicability of the word "educator" with regards to these people.  I also will refrain from calling them evil, insensitive, hypocritical, intolerant, reprehensible, offensive, impotent, impertinent, malicious, and traitorous.  I will instead take the high road on this issue.

Let me be very clear with what I'm saying, since it's apparent that these people are illiterate, inhuman animals who would likely eat the young of others if they thought it would further their cause.  To those who have been involved in such hateful acts, and to J. Duke Albanese, the spineless wimp who, vicariously or otherwise, enjoys watching children suffer, I say this: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

As a final suggestion to Mr. Albanese himself: grow a spine, you twit.  You need to be fired and charged with accessory to all of the crimes being committed under your tutelage.

As for the parents of these children, and perhaps even the military itself, I strongly suggest filing lawsuits, filing official complaints with the state agency in Maine responsible for protecting children (it's Child Protective Services here in Texas), and filing police reports for emotional battery of a child (start there and work your way forward to treason).

NASA announced Tuesday, February 25, that Pioneer 10, the first man-made spacecraft to venture outside of our solar system, had fallen silent after more than three decades and billions of miles in flight.  NASA does not plan to attempt further communication with the craft.

Launched March 2, 1972, Pioneer 10 was on a 21-month mission.  It was the first spacecraft to pass through the asteroid belt and continued on its way to Jupiter to obtain close-up images of the gas giant, then continued on its way toward the outer reaches of our solar system.

In 1983, it passed the orbit of Pluto — leaving our solar system behind and continuing toward the distant star Aldebaran (in the constellation Taurus).  At its current speed, it will take Pioneer 10 approximately 2 million years to reach the distant solar system.

Despite its planned mission, the spacecraft continued to transmit telemetry.  Because of its great distance from Earth, scientists continued to track it via its telemetry broadcasts as part of NASA's communication technology research for the future Interstellar Probe mission.  Even after ending its mission officially in 1997, the spacecraft continued sending telemetry and continued to be tracked.

On April 27, 2002, Earth received its final complete broadcast from Pioneer 10.

Even after it stopped sending full telemetry data, Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Deep Space Network was still able to track Pioneer 10 via faint broadcasts — the last of which occurred on January 22, 2003.  At the time of that broadcast, the spacecraft was 7.6 billion miles from Earth and had been traveling for almost 31 years.

From that distance, it took the signal, moving at the speed of light, approximately 11 hours and 20 minutes to arrive.  NASA and JPL report that the signals received on January 22 and the two previous signals were extremely faint.

The Deep Space Network made a final attempt at contact on February 7 of this year, but they heard nothing.  No further attempts will be made to contact the spacecraft.

Larry Asher, the Pioneer 10 project manager at NASA's Ames Research Center, said, "It was a workhorse that far exceeded its warranty, and I guess you could say we got our money's worth."

The Pioneer 10 spacecraft carries on it a gold plaque engraved with a map showing the location of Earth within our solar system.  The plaque also includes a message of goodwill.

You can find the official NASA press release and additional information about Pioneer 10 here.

I think my roommate sent this to me (forwarded from someone else).  I found it too hilarious not to share.

Although it tends to be too much about teenage angst and drama (akin to Dawson’s Creek and most other WB shows), Smallville surprised me with a fantastic episode ("Rosetta") on Tuesday, February 25.  This episode heralded the return of Christopher Reeve to the Superman genre, and I don’t believe it could have been handled in a better way.

Proving himself a grandee of acting, Christopher Reeve plays Dr. Swann, "a brilliant scientist who holds a message for Clark [Kent] from his home planet." When he sees a Kryptonian symbol on the side of the Kents' farm, Swann is able to finally piece together the information he’s compiled in his search for extraterrestrial life with a significant piece of the puzzle — Clark Kent (Tom Welling).  When the two eventually meet and Swann is able to share his information with the teenage Superman, it turns out to be a somewhat enlightening yet confusing experience for Clark.

Although fearful of a cheap reunion story designed solely to draw in viewers with Reeve's return to the Superman universe, I was entirely impressed with the story, production, and role that brought two separate "man of steel" generations together.

The revelations abound in this episode.  Clark learns of his lineage, origin, true name, the mystery surrounding Krypton's disappearance, his having been sent to our planet, and the realization that he is — genetically speaking — alone in the universe.  Further portions of the message from home are confusing for him, lending the drama we must expect from The WB.

With the Superman theme from the feature films reintroduced magically as background music during the exchange between Swann and Clark, the audience is swept into a moment of realization, discovery, and mystery — even though we already know all of the answers.

The episode ends with a public service announcement about the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation which truly completed Reeve's triumphant return with an important reminder about this important project mixed with a taste of the sense of humor from Christopher that we were all accustomed to at one time (and it was very nice to see that side of him again).  There is even special mention on the CRPF site about the Smallville episode.

If you missed this episode on Tuesday, it will replay this Sunday, March 2, at 5:00 PM EST/PST (4:00 PM CST) on The WB.  It's definitely worth your time to watch it even if you aren't a Smallville fan.  To briefly remember the Superman from the big screen and to experience Christopher Reeve's triumphant return to acting, this episode is worth the investment of one hour of your time.

I saw today that the UN has, in its increasingly irrelevant way, warned countries about relaxing their laws on cannabis (marijuana) and other drugs.  They say they’re worried about sending mixed signals to children and the possible dangers (none of which is proven, but suggestions in that direction make for good policy, right?).  In fact, the anti-drug movement in America already grabbed the most recent inconclusive test results and is trying to sell them as fact.  Bad policy, typical government.

The British Lung Foundation recently completed a study that, although inconclusive, could suggest that smoking three joints (marijuana cigarettes for the prudes in the audience) is equivalent to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes per day.  It's imperative to note that the study's results are inconclusive and dubiously suggest a similarity.  There are no hard facts or evidence here — merely conjecture.

In America, we've already started seeing anti-drug advertisements on television putting this information out there as the truth and closing the thought with something entirely offensive: “Marijuana is more dangerous than we thought.”

It's terribly misleading to take junk science and call it fact when the true science about so many other things is ignored.  It's a double standard to an infinite level.

We know alcohol kills a lot of people every year (drunk drivers), ruins lives in frighteningly high numbers (alcoholism and related problems), and promotes diseases such as liver damage and alcohol poisoning.  Despite all of this, no one — not even the UN — is making a move to criminalize alcohol.

Oh, wait…  That's been tried once before, was called prohibition, and failed miserable.  Alcohol is also a very large part of the world economy.

But why the double standard, and why is the UN not crying out for a change in policy here?  Does it not confuse children that we outlaw so many drugs, but not one that has proven so lethal in so many different ways?

Read the rest of this entry »

ABCNews ran a story on World News Tonight Monday, February 24.  The story even made it to their web site.  Like the liberal spin doctors they’ve sadly become, ABCNews saw fit to include only half of the details in order to make the story anti-Bush.  Pitiful…

The Bush plan, as proposed, does indeed intend to cut Federal funding of schools who are currently receiving special dispensation (extra funding) for military families.

At first glance, I was quite upset by the whole idea — “pissed” would be an excellent way to put it.  Pardon me, but these are the folks serving their country and protecting our freedoms.

Before going off on a tangent, however, I decided to investigate the plan so I would have all of the facts.  Note that this is the step ABCNews missed, since their report only covered half of the facts and showed no signs of investigative reporting.  On the contrary, their entire story, as expected, reeked of pungent liberal BS spun around a grain of truth.  That is the best way to get a political message across, since starting with a grain of truth keeps people from wondering about the rest of the crap you feed them as part of that truth, but it’s not the way to report the news.

As with most of the media (including CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC), the liberal media told the story like this (I’m paraphrasing, of course).

While the men and women of our armed forces are marching off to possible war with Iraq, President Bush is trying to cut the Federal funding to the schools their children attend.

That was the lead-in.  The rest of the story went downhill from there, since ABCNews spun the funding cut into a standalone idea.  They also felt it necessary to share just that piece of the story with everyone they encountered, thereby engendering fierce opposition and anger.

Well, I’m here to set the story straight with the proposal that’s actually in the budget, not a grain of truth surrounded by all the lies I can possibly come up with (politically motivated lies, of course).

The proposed budget does indeed seek to cut extra Federal funding given to schools in order to offset the costs incurred by teaching children of military families.  The extra funding was designed to ensure that these schools were compensated for the costs of teaching children of military families who live on base and therefore do not pay any property or other taxes that would normally fund education.

So far it seems like a really bad idea, right?  Indeed, were I to stop there and call that the entire explanation, I would completely understand how people could be upset.  But (and you knew that was coming), the story does not stop there.

The funding to be cut is the compensation for military families who do not live on base and would therefore be paying property and other taxes — thereby funding their local education system the way the rest of us do.

So, were ABCNews to be honest, they would have explained that the plan is to cut the “double-dip” payments that these schools are currently getting.  The double payments are that Federal tax dollars are being spent to offset the on-base families who aren’t living on the base at all.  The Federal tax payments cover the property and other taxes that these families would not be paying if they were living on their local base — but remember the important fact here is that these families are not living on the base.

In our zealous pursuit to reduce the deficit, we should be looking for ways to cut spending where possible.  Unlike the liberal agenda, which is to tax more and spend more, Bush has found a place where these schools are being paid for the same thing twice.  Cutting the Federal funding makes sense.

It’s shameful that ABCNews decided to only tell enough of the truth to stir up anti-Bush sentiment, but it’s not surprising at all.  Had they told the entire truth, people would have been less likely to be upset and more likely to understand and appreciate the frugal approach to what is obviously a double payment for services rendered.

In the future, I would suggest that ABCNews try hard to tell the whole truth instead of portraying half-truths as the whole story.  The practice is repulsive and offensive, and it is a disservice to the viewers who trust ABCNews to provide an objective report rather than a blatantly political spin.

As for the school districts who are crying foul and wondering how they could possibly cover their costs without this money, I would suggest a more responsible approach to the budgetary process.  If everyone were to budget based on double payments, we?d all have more money to spend, but the funds would soon dry up when we all realized we were paying for everything twice.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for George Will, a commentator with ABCNews.  He’s an intelligent man who can provide a fiercely intelligent debate on most any topic.  When I first stumbled across this commentary on ABCNEWS.com, I opened it immediately, knowing I wouldn’t be disappointed.  True to form, I was not.  Despite my having a PC-induced harsher view of the French right now, I must agree with George in that we’ve had our ups and downs with France before — and we’ve both been there for each other in times of need.  I’ll still dislike them for now, but George has once again given me a moment of pause and forced me to listen to the other side of the story.

Thanks again, George.

I’ve seen more and more of this lately, and I’ve decided that I’m tired of it.  Local (city and county, for instance) governments have increasingly become obsessed with passing resolutions to voice their opposition to a war with Iraq.  Pardon me while I laugh my ass off.

I drive down the street and have to swerve to avoid the potholes.  State and local budgets are suffering through severe shortages that must be dealt with immediately.  Who doesn’t have a list of issues they believe their local goverment needs to deal with?

Despite having plenty of work to do which stems directly from the job they’re supposed to be doing, local governments are increasingly getting involved with the war debate when they should be focusing on their real areas of responsibility — not the job of the United States Government.

Local officials seem to have forgotten who they work for and what their jobs actually are.  When I voted to put these people into these elected positions, at no time did the job description mention making political statements on my behalf.

With as much unfinished business as their is at the local level (pay raises for firefighters and police, filling the potholes that plague drivers no matter where they are, budget deficits, and other local concerns), it amazes me that local officials have the audacity to think they are authorized on my behalf to voice an opinion on the possibility of war.  To add insult to injury, they are making a statement on my behalf without having asked what my opinion is in the first place.

If I was doing something other than my job while on my boss’ payroll, I would be disciplined for not being on task.  In addition, if I were making statements as to the disposition of my employer without asking my employer for their actual position, I would likely lose my job.

So, what’s the difference here?

If you want to infringe on the purview of the Federal government, let me suggest running for Federal office or voting in the next national election.  Aside from that, sit down, shut up, and do the job I put you there to do.

In the heated battlefield of rhetorical bombardment seen of late, a clear split has become evident within the European community, if not within the European Union itself.  Referred to as the “old” and “new” Europe, this split is most evident when Europe is viewed in terms of its geography — that is, the western (”old”) versus the central and eastern (”new”) regions.  This ideological and geopolitical separation becomes blatant when inspected in terms of the relationship and view of America.

The past few weeks have seen a heated and sometimes childish pro- and anti-America battle waging within the confines of Europe (as a whole and not in terms of the EU).  The anti-America camp, being led by France and the clumsily outspoken Jacques Chirac, has vehemently made clear its view that America must stand alone and that the once applicable term “friends and allies” is no longer applicable.  At the other end of spectrum is the pro-America camp, led by Great Britain’s Tony Blair (albeit at the expense of his popularity).

The rhetorical battlefield has almost entirely been strewn with the corpses of the anti-American movement who have repeatedly used undignified, immature, and upbraiding attacks to make their point.  From this side of the pond, it looks as though this gaucherie has all been in an attempt to placate the uninformed masses within their countries (or the uninformed minority who have the funds with which to sway political discourse).

Despite their verbose attempts to define the problem in terms of Iraq, France and the members of their anti-American movement have done little to convince Americans or other Europeans that this is anything other than a resurgence of the mindless, second-class babble that we have come to expect in response to the world’s political atmosphere which almost entirely circulates around America (as the last remaining superpower).

We Americans have long been accustomed to the idea of Europeans as voluptuaries with little more than contempt for the rest of the world.  How much do these countries spend on foreign aid?  How much do they spend on their own defense?  Were it not for America, would they even be countries?

This parasitic compunction has mutated from a laughable oddity of the European mindset to a dangerous intrusion into the security of the world as a whole.  Rather than put their selfish differences aside long enough to cooperate and be true “friends and allies,” these sad little malfeasants have decided to spit in the eye that happens to be on the same body of the hand that’s feeding them.

On a significantly brighter note, however, the pro-American team has no guilt whatsoever voicing support and acting in a manner more indicative of statehood and maturity.  This has been a bright spot for Americans in realizing that the blood we’ve shed, the money we’ve spent, the time we’ve lost, and the effort we’ve put forth in the protection and assistance of other countries has not gone unnoticed.  It has also given us the justification we needed to continue to be there for the world despite having the world spit in our faces in return.

A question has been burning in many an American’s mind about the apparent oil-and-water separation between parts of Europe.  This disjunction between the “old” and “new” European mindsets has been more than a mere curiosity to us, but has, in fact, been of some concern.  We have, after all, been saviors to countries such as France and Germany on more than on occasion.  Germany did not seem to mind our presence or our “unilateral” approach to the Soviet Union and, eventually, to seeing the Berlin Wall torn down.” France, despite it’s acquiescence to every wind that blows through, did not seem to mind Americans liberating their country from the Nazi threat.  And the list goes on.

Despite these obvious on-par interventions, these countries have seen fit to turn the Iraq issue into an all-out war against America.

On the flip side of the coin, we have the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Romania — to name a few — who, even with reservations about war, stand behind America without hesitation.

The night-and-day difference between old and new friends does cause one to pause in consideration of what has spawned such a disparate polarization of Europe.

For instance, the recent demonstrations against war in Iraq saw their largest numbers in the western European countries (650,000 in Rome, approximately one million in London, and another 500,000 in Berlin).  In Warsaw (capital of Poland), however, the number was around 1,500.  Romania’s demonstration was negligible at best, and the Czech Republic saw fewer demonstrators than in Warsaw.

So why the stark contrast between these European “cousins”?

I’m certainly not in a position to answer that question with 100% certainty, but I could likely offer an analysis based on my own experience, knowledge, and humble understanding of the European mindset.

Central and eastern European countries do not — and, IMHO, should not — trust the western European countries.  French President Jacques Chirac gave a perfect example of this with his speech that earned him the first entry in my STFU section.  The distrust of the western European countries could only be amplified by having the French as the engorged head of the anti-American movement, as the French are distrusted most out of all the western European countries.

For example, just last week a Czech minister declared, “After the experience of the 1930s, don’t talk to us about French guarantees.”  I wonder if that left a permanent mark?

If you’re unfamiliar with World War II, then the reference to the 1930s may be unclear.  To help clarify, it’s important to take note that central and eastern European countries have only recently begun talking about pre-World War II “appeasement.”  This was the policy of accommodating Nazi German, followed closely by France and Great Britain, in the final approach to the war.  This policy normally was implemented at the expense of Germany’s immediate eastern neighbors.

I would think the entire fiasco left a terrible taste in the mouths of the central and eastern European countries when it came to their western European counterparts.  There had been no protection from them, no assistance, no assurances of hope — nothing, actually.  In order to save their own collective hides, western European countries practically handed central and eastern European countries to Germany for plundering and pillaging.

In addition to the not-so-near historical reason noted above, I would put money on the fact that Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and Romanians still feel a debt of gratitude towards America for its singularly identifiable contribution in bringing the Soviet Union to an end as far as being an empire goes.  Aside from cowering behind American strength in the hopes that they would not be identified by the Soviets as targets, no European country can honestly say that they did more than a tiny fraction of what America did to bring an end to the Soviet Union.

This not-too-distant past must surely play a significant part in shaping the opinions of these countries as they find their places on the world stage.  In knowing where to stand for your part, western European countries have taken to forcing others to choose between Europe and America.  As uncomfortable a position as that must be, I cannot imagine it being difficult to understand America would be the better friend and ally.

Historical references aside, however, many of these countries are striving to become members of NATO (those who have not already become members, that is).  This does require a certain level of cooperation with America, of course, and likely plays a part in determining which side of the fence you’re going to stand on.

Yet, despite the political and historical reasons for not wanting to side with “old” Europe, there may be even more complicated reasons to choose America as a friend.  These reasons are beyond my understanding of the world and the region in particular, but I’ll try to elucidate what I know.

In the days of the Soviet Union (and even today, although on smaller scales with China, North Korea and Cuba, for instance), communism was an iconoclastic experiment on a scale the likes of which we had never seen.  In its most basic form, communism was based on the premise of social and cultural engineering in which traditional ideas and elites were utterly destroyed.  In order to ensure its success, people’s links to their own pasts and histories had to be done away with (this served to isolate traditional concepts of culture and society which were not applicable under communism).  For this reason, countries who found themselves under control of the Soviet Union soon found themselves unable to connect — or, as of today, reconnect — with their own pasts.

The inability to recapitulate their histories in terms which easily lead to the present form of their societies and cultures is forcing these countries to redefine themselves in terms of their futures rather than their pasts.

That point of view leads directly to an alignment with America over western Europe.  Proud of their history, which dates back significantly further than the two-and-a-quarter century history of America, “old” Europe was formed through historical ties which can be followed back to the beginning of recorded history.  America, on the other hand, made itself, its own history, its own culture, and its own society — all of which is based on the combined experiences and histories of its people.

America must represent a dynamic, populist and optimistic future for these countries — all without the centuries of historical baggage that Europe carries with it in order to define itself.  These countries do not have that luxury and must therefore define themselves anew.

It probably doesn’t hurt that many Americans can trace their ancestries back to Czech, Polish and other central and eastern European countries.  This gives rise to a certain brotherhood of lineage (even if only perceived) between America and these countries.

Again, I cannot be certain I fully understand the differences in mindsets between the European countries, but I would bet that I’m pretty close.