Two oddities that have been floating in my mind...
Sometimes British political figures (more than the PM, and excludes the monarch) come to the US to talk to congress, and on rare occasion appeal directly to the American public on some level. Just like the link I gave recently to Chávez's providing direct aid (in the form of petrol) to British poor in a particular region, this is generally an interesting act - is it just PR for the folks at home, or do they expect to make a local impact (and ifso, do they expect this to affect them in some way?). America is a very big place (which might be part of the problem - if we had a smaller number of states and they were ordered to have more of a roughly equal population (e.g. the Dakotas, Idaho, Nebraska, and Wyoming were one state, the 4-corners states all one as well, each with the standard representativeness/organisation for a state), etc, maybe politics would be easier to follow because there'd be less sheer bulk.. is that a real problem though? Hmm. As an example, consider George Galloway (who I'm coming to consider to be a bit of a political troll despite liking some portion of this views) - I wonder if his dabbling in American politics/consciousness has a chance to make an impression or a change.. If there is a domestic (UK) political benefit to Galloway engaging the United States on a governmental or political level, what kind is it? By and large, what does it mean for a MP (or other British political figure) to deal with America? A fair number of Americans I've known see the United States as a kind of successor to the UK and British values - must feel odd for them to see that kind of involvement.
(Radio interview people really irritate me - I'm usually more irritated at their domination of conversations than their positions, and once one person gets started with it, the other person usually joins suit and even if one person is better (or ruder), it generally becomes rough enough to make it hard to read/listen. When I was younger, I thought IRC was the solution because it makes such domination harder - downside: instead of giving everyone a chance, it sometimes just makes for disjoint communication. Is that better? Will the realisation that it will happen stop people from dominating?)
I've also been thinking about the curious and special relationship a number faiths have towards atheism/agnosticism - generally different than their relationship to other faiths. I recently have come to suspect that at least part of this comes from there being "borderlands" of perspective between their perspective and atheist/agnostic perspectives - I've spoken before of Catholic Atheists and other Atheists - people who hold to the traditions and might defend the institutions of their former faith against institutions of other faiths in argument while rejecting them (maybe akin to "Only I can criticise my wife that way", although there's more to it than that) - I understand there to be, in the Islamic world, private sympathies in some cases towards the irreligious in people who might not similarly have private sympathies towards other faiths, again perhaps because of those borderlands. I've also seen the opposite - people who are ok with people of other faiths, any faith, so long as they believe in something. ... I suppose maybe I've given up on really saying something given that I've covered all the permutations, ne? Hmm, depends on our null... *distracted*