While I was writing the previous piece, the way that we have increasingly become reliant upon acronyms suddenly struck home.
After working in IT (an acronym of course, that used to be DP, another acronym, when I first started) for 28 years, I should have been aware of this, of course. No industry is more affected (or should I say "afflicted"?).
So when is an acronym an official acronym, and when is is simply a combination of letters that have slipped into common use (like IT again)? And how international have these acronyms become - NATO in English is OTAN in French, and NAVO in Dutch for example.
Do we have a need for a body to decide these things, maybe an international body (did I just catch sight of angry smoke signals appearing from the USA when I made that last remark?)? Maybe we already have one somewhere?
And then there are the words like "a", "the", "for" etc which serve as link words in the real meaning of the phrase, but are often omitted in English acronyms. In German these get included most of the the time, but as lower case letters (so "f" for "für", the German word for "for", is common).
It might serve a purpose though. At the moment some acronyms are simply not possible. If you set up a Society for the Heightening of Innovative Technology, you could not turn it into an acronym (unless the grand design of the original project was nothing like as good as intended!).
And then there are things that would not work internationally, but might be OK in one language. In English a Movement for Innovative Scientific Technology would work OK, but you would not be recommendeded to use the English acronym in Germany. Better call it BfIWT here, using its German initials and not forgetting the "f"!
Anyway I rather like the idea of setting up a body for establishing international acronym approval (if one does not exist already). It might be the right medium to provide me, finally, with the job that I am looking for but cannot find!
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
I keep reading about people having near death experiences and what weird and wonderful things occurred.
People who think that their soul has left their body and looked down upon themselves, people who have seen what it is like in Heaven (not sure the capital letter is justified here incidentally), people who have seen the flames and furnaces of Hell (see previous comment in parentheses) usw.
I often participate in discussions on the subject. The problem is nobody replies to anything that I ever say ....
Readers of this blog will realise that I nearly died in 2008 - in hospital, during the second (of three) operations following my heart attack.
So I have had my own NDE! Which was? Two days of total peace, quiet, undisturbed, nothing strange or unusual. Then my brain started to wake up, my subconscious was roused and set off the usual vibrations in the form of a shapeless dream mixing all the usual nonsense that is filling the space in your cranium viewer at the time, and finally revived - conscious and in pain. Extreme pain! It still hurts when I look back and think about that moment. The sleep had been so wonderful and then came that ....
So shall I say that I am sceptical when it comes to what I have read on the subject of other people's NDEs (or may maybe I am envious as mine was nothing like as enjoyable? Laugh at that thought and move on)?
Remember that most anyone in this situation is very sick. Repeat - very sick. Your body is completely out of sync, your brain is fighting along with the rest of your anatomy to stay in existence, and logic is one of the victims.
Delusion in this circumstance is easy. I can recall for days lying in the same bed, staring at the same doorway and trying to persuade myself that it was exactly the same place. The usual control that you have over your mind is missing - at least part of the time.
That people at this point of their lives should lose a grip on reality and start having illusions, does not surprise me. That people have dreams that present some wonderful vision that they are seeing the afterlife, again does not surprise me.
The question really is whether they have analysed what was happening in the broad light of day, with clear logic, as to what was the reality of what happened. The more assiduous the analysis, the more you understand what was involved. When you are very ill, on the point of death, that sort of logical clarity is not always available. So that people might delude themselves (in a totally harmless way incidentally - this is not to blame them for anything) into thinking that something weird and wonderful happened, or that a dream was actually real, should not come as a surprise.
My own view though, looking back upon my own NDE is that there is no logical analysis which will accept that these events actually occurred in reality. And that there is a perfectly logical explanation as to why people underwent these "experiences".
People who think that their soul has left their body and looked down upon themselves, people who have seen what it is like in Heaven (not sure the capital letter is justified here incidentally), people who have seen the flames and furnaces of Hell (see previous comment in parentheses) usw.
I often participate in discussions on the subject. The problem is nobody replies to anything that I ever say ....
Readers of this blog will realise that I nearly died in 2008 - in hospital, during the second (of three) operations following my heart attack.
So I have had my own NDE! Which was? Two days of total peace, quiet, undisturbed, nothing strange or unusual. Then my brain started to wake up, my subconscious was roused and set off the usual vibrations in the form of a shapeless dream mixing all the usual nonsense that is filling the space in your cranium viewer at the time, and finally revived - conscious and in pain. Extreme pain! It still hurts when I look back and think about that moment. The sleep had been so wonderful and then came that ....
So shall I say that I am sceptical when it comes to what I have read on the subject of other people's NDEs (or may maybe I am envious as mine was nothing like as enjoyable? Laugh at that thought and move on)?
Remember that most anyone in this situation is very sick. Repeat - very sick. Your body is completely out of sync, your brain is fighting along with the rest of your anatomy to stay in existence, and logic is one of the victims.
Delusion in this circumstance is easy. I can recall for days lying in the same bed, staring at the same doorway and trying to persuade myself that it was exactly the same place. The usual control that you have over your mind is missing - at least part of the time.
That people at this point of their lives should lose a grip on reality and start having illusions, does not surprise me. That people have dreams that present some wonderful vision that they are seeing the afterlife, again does not surprise me.
The question really is whether they have analysed what was happening in the broad light of day, with clear logic, as to what was the reality of what happened. The more assiduous the analysis, the more you understand what was involved. When you are very ill, on the point of death, that sort of logical clarity is not always available. So that people might delude themselves (in a totally harmless way incidentally - this is not to blame them for anything) into thinking that something weird and wonderful happened, or that a dream was actually real, should not come as a surprise.
My own view though, looking back upon my own NDE is that there is no logical analysis which will accept that these events actually occurred in reality. And that there is a perfectly logical explanation as to why people underwent these "experiences".
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Starts when you're always afraid
Back to the Buffalo Springfield song I quoted a few weeks ago - it's an old song?
Maybe but it is still relevant.
I quoted to a friend on a MyLot discussion on Hitler yesterday: "Antifa und sehr stolz darauf". For the non-German speakers "Anti-Fascist and very proud of it"!
And shout it loud and clear, boldly without a trace of fear in your voice! And stand proud in your beliefs, as tall as you can, as fiercely indomitable as you could ever want to be!
Don't let these thugs (whether European Fascists, their American counterparts, or their seemingly opposing Islamofascists) make you cower in the face of their threats! You have everything in your favour, they have only cowardice, so don't run for cover, take them on, face them down. They will only win if you let them have the psychological advantage.
There was an excellent item by Magnus Ranstrop, a leading Swedish researcher into terrorism, on cnn.com this morning. He pointed out absolutely correctly that while the ideologies seem different at first glance, the tactics, psychology and approach of Al Qaeda and the likes of Anders Breivik are almost an exact parallel.
This makes sense. They are all Fascists, working on the inclusive/exclusive basis (if you belong you are honoured, if you do not belong you are scum to be humiliated or even destroyed). There is no respect for other beliefs or cultures, eventually it is a war to eradicate the non-believers. And create some ludicrous form of purity, whether ethnic purity (à la Eurofascism) or religious purity (à la Islamofascism).
Eventually we can all live in fear of these people - and they will win. Or we can stand up and shout from the rooftops that they are the scum, not us, and we will not submit to their mediocrity and to their threats.
Dedicated to the memory of Cato Bontjes van Beek, Sophie Scholl, Eva-Maria Buch and Liane Berkowitz, who bravely resisted Hitler's doctrine to their personal cost. And to the thousands of forgotten names who were slaughtered by the Nazi regime in Plötzensee jail in the name of "justice". A return of that form of justice, or alternatively the imposition of Sharia Law, we do not need ever again!
Maybe but it is still relevant.
I quoted to a friend on a MyLot discussion on Hitler yesterday: "Antifa und sehr stolz darauf". For the non-German speakers "Anti-Fascist and very proud of it"!
And shout it loud and clear, boldly without a trace of fear in your voice! And stand proud in your beliefs, as tall as you can, as fiercely indomitable as you could ever want to be!
Don't let these thugs (whether European Fascists, their American counterparts, or their seemingly opposing Islamofascists) make you cower in the face of their threats! You have everything in your favour, they have only cowardice, so don't run for cover, take them on, face them down. They will only win if you let them have the psychological advantage.
There was an excellent item by Magnus Ranstrop, a leading Swedish researcher into terrorism, on cnn.com this morning. He pointed out absolutely correctly that while the ideologies seem different at first glance, the tactics, psychology and approach of Al Qaeda and the likes of Anders Breivik are almost an exact parallel.
This makes sense. They are all Fascists, working on the inclusive/exclusive basis (if you belong you are honoured, if you do not belong you are scum to be humiliated or even destroyed). There is no respect for other beliefs or cultures, eventually it is a war to eradicate the non-believers. And create some ludicrous form of purity, whether ethnic purity (à la Eurofascism) or religious purity (à la Islamofascism).
Eventually we can all live in fear of these people - and they will win. Or we can stand up and shout from the rooftops that they are the scum, not us, and we will not submit to their mediocrity and to their threats.
Dedicated to the memory of Cato Bontjes van Beek, Sophie Scholl, Eva-Maria Buch and Liane Berkowitz, who bravely resisted Hitler's doctrine to their personal cost. And to the thousands of forgotten names who were slaughtered by the Nazi regime in Plötzensee jail in the name of "justice". A return of that form of justice, or alternatively the imposition of Sharia Law, we do not need ever again!
Monday, 25 July 2011
A cross between Quisling and McVeigh
Everyone who knows me will know my opinions on the city of Oslo and the country of Norway and my constant references to the seven wonderful months that I spent working there in 2007.
So the events involving Anders Breivik and the 93 (maybe more) people that he chose to kill in cold blood the other day, hit home particularly hard.
The parallels with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 though are curiously eerie. Like Timothy McVeigh, this was a man angry with government who was perfectly happy to see a large number of people killed to make his point. They were not innocent victims, they were required targets so that the agenda could be pushed forward.
That Breivik like McVeigh was incapable of understanding that the revulsion over his act would far outweigh any rise in support for his cause, should not be surprising. Does anyone remember exactly what McVeigh stood for - now? The only thing that you would think of with McVeigh is that he was a cold-blooded murderer of 168 people.
What else brings the two together? Both appear to have been single, we know little of Breivik's social circle yet, so whether he had a small circle of close friends (as was the case with McVeigh) or whether he was a complete loner, we do not know. Both though seemed organised enough to obtain weaponry and explosives and knew how to use them.
Where Breivik belongs in a different category is that he is very much a throwback to a line of European Fascists dating back to the 1930s. From what I have read of his views, he would have been very comfortable supporting Quisling, the Norwegian Fascist leader. His propensity to extreme views is similar to that of the descendants of Mussert's supporters in the Netherlands, who emerged in substantial numbers when Pim Fortuyn became prominent at the start of this century.
While here, it might also be significant to compare the behaviour of Breivik with the equally moronic British Fascist, David Copeland, who is now serving time for multiple murders, and who was booted out of the BNP (for crying out loud!) as it was not radical enough.
I commented on this to an American conservative who was producing the usual Bible-bashing anti-Muslim stuff a few weeks ago. Like most of her breed, sadly she did not "get it".
There may well be a danger in Europe from Islamofascism (the extreme version of Islam responsible for September 11th, Madrid, London etc). This is not to be denied.
Far more important, given Europe's traditions though, would be a rise in the traditional "bash the foreigners" Fascism that has never totally vanished despite their ideology being exposed for what it was under Hitler and Mussolini (and Mussert and Quisling and Pavelic and a few other equally hideous individuals).
Breivik's actions and ideology come out of that tradition. He may turn out to have been a loner, but he was not isolated in his thinking, and we have to be on our guard before this repeats itself elsewhere.
So the events involving Anders Breivik and the 93 (maybe more) people that he chose to kill in cold blood the other day, hit home particularly hard.
The parallels with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 though are curiously eerie. Like Timothy McVeigh, this was a man angry with government who was perfectly happy to see a large number of people killed to make his point. They were not innocent victims, they were required targets so that the agenda could be pushed forward.
That Breivik like McVeigh was incapable of understanding that the revulsion over his act would far outweigh any rise in support for his cause, should not be surprising. Does anyone remember exactly what McVeigh stood for - now? The only thing that you would think of with McVeigh is that he was a cold-blooded murderer of 168 people.
What else brings the two together? Both appear to have been single, we know little of Breivik's social circle yet, so whether he had a small circle of close friends (as was the case with McVeigh) or whether he was a complete loner, we do not know. Both though seemed organised enough to obtain weaponry and explosives and knew how to use them.
Where Breivik belongs in a different category is that he is very much a throwback to a line of European Fascists dating back to the 1930s. From what I have read of his views, he would have been very comfortable supporting Quisling, the Norwegian Fascist leader. His propensity to extreme views is similar to that of the descendants of Mussert's supporters in the Netherlands, who emerged in substantial numbers when Pim Fortuyn became prominent at the start of this century.
While here, it might also be significant to compare the behaviour of Breivik with the equally moronic British Fascist, David Copeland, who is now serving time for multiple murders, and who was booted out of the BNP (for crying out loud!) as it was not radical enough.
I commented on this to an American conservative who was producing the usual Bible-bashing anti-Muslim stuff a few weeks ago. Like most of her breed, sadly she did not "get it".
There may well be a danger in Europe from Islamofascism (the extreme version of Islam responsible for September 11th, Madrid, London etc). This is not to be denied.
Far more important, given Europe's traditions though, would be a rise in the traditional "bash the foreigners" Fascism that has never totally vanished despite their ideology being exposed for what it was under Hitler and Mussolini (and Mussert and Quisling and Pavelic and a few other equally hideous individuals).
Breivik's actions and ideology come out of that tradition. He may turn out to have been a loner, but he was not isolated in his thinking, and we have to be on our guard before this repeats itself elsewhere.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
So would I appear in a porn movie?
WARNING - ADULT CONTENT (pretty tongue-in-cheek adult content, but anyway). Any of my regular readers who have kids, try and keep them away from this piece, and any kids reading this, please go and find something else to do - I do not want you reading this!
I am not sure where I first ran into this discussion - not on MyLot.com for a change.
There was this person ranting on about only evil people appear in porn movies etc usw, and it was a typical rant.
My answer anyway is a qualified "yes" (and given my age what have I to lose? Well my self-respect, but apart from that).
First, I would have nothing to do with anything that involved violence (that incidentally would also rule me out of a lot of non-porn action movies, which seem to glorify violence for its own sake).
Second, I would have nothing to do with anything involving legally underage performers.
Third, I would not appear in any single-sex movies, as my tastes and arousal factors are totally heterosexual.
Fourth, my female co-star(s) would have to have something about her/them that would arouse me. Women walking round naked, for instance, is old hat in my life. My wife can walk totally naked from the bathroom to the bedroom or vice versa without my getting excited, so there has to be something more to the wom(a/e)n involved. Probably no older than 25. Granny movies, incidentally (the rage in Germany these days apparently) are definitely no-go.
Fifth, they would have to pay me enough to make it worth my while, so the sheer embarrassment that I would suffer when I meet someone who has seen (or even worse, bought) the movie, might be placated.
Sixth, and this will upset a few female readers out there - any co-star better not have shaved her vagina. I find it a total turn-off, and I always grew up believing that when a girl stopped being a child and became a woman she grew two things - breasts and pubic hair. Old-fashioned, male chauvinist? OK - for once I plead guilty.
Seventh, there had better be a large free supply of viagra or cialis or wharrever else there is that works.
Eighth, my wife better had be out of the country and never find out what I was getting up to while she was away (where is my MyLot "angry" smiley????) ....
I am not sure where I first ran into this discussion - not on MyLot.com for a change.
There was this person ranting on about only evil people appear in porn movies etc usw, and it was a typical rant.
My answer anyway is a qualified "yes" (and given my age what have I to lose? Well my self-respect, but apart from that).
First, I would have nothing to do with anything that involved violence (that incidentally would also rule me out of a lot of non-porn action movies, which seem to glorify violence for its own sake).
Second, I would have nothing to do with anything involving legally underage performers.
Third, I would not appear in any single-sex movies, as my tastes and arousal factors are totally heterosexual.
Fourth, my female co-star(s) would have to have something about her/them that would arouse me. Women walking round naked, for instance, is old hat in my life. My wife can walk totally naked from the bathroom to the bedroom or vice versa without my getting excited, so there has to be something more to the wom(a/e)n involved. Probably no older than 25. Granny movies, incidentally (the rage in Germany these days apparently) are definitely no-go.
Fifth, they would have to pay me enough to make it worth my while, so the sheer embarrassment that I would suffer when I meet someone who has seen (or even worse, bought) the movie, might be placated.
Sixth, and this will upset a few female readers out there - any co-star better not have shaved her vagina. I find it a total turn-off, and I always grew up believing that when a girl stopped being a child and became a woman she grew two things - breasts and pubic hair. Old-fashioned, male chauvinist? OK - for once I plead guilty.
Seventh, there had better be a large free supply of viagra or cialis or wharrever else there is that works.
Eighth, my wife better had be out of the country and never find out what I was getting up to while she was away (where is my MyLot "angry" smiley????) ....
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Raising people up, not knocking them down
I have said nearly everything that I have had to say on the Murdoch / Brooks etc scandal.
One thing that really struck home today though was reading the latest interchange between correspondents on yahoo.com.
"Liberals" knocking "Conservatives", "Conservatives" knocking "Liberals".
OK, the media will not like it, and the late departed News of the World would never have thrived on it, but it takes me back forty years and why I first went into teaching.
Why is it not possible instead of trying to knock people down all the time, cannot we not instead try and create a world where we can raise people up, give them hopes, give them expectations, give them a chance to move forward with their lives with hope and a positive outlook?
If we are to admire success, why set the successful up as Aunt Sallies to be knocked over?
Why is respect an outmoded concept? Why cannot we learn to show decency and understanding towards people? Are we incapable of finding good in others, must cynicism always be the yardstick?
To the memory and respect of some people I knew and loved dearly during my childhood, I would offer this thought (in the week before my birthday) - rebuilding hope, giving people something better, making things better, creating a world that is better for everyone who is to come (and without inflicting suffering upon other species so we can get there).
Why is this not possible?
One thing that really struck home today though was reading the latest interchange between correspondents on yahoo.com.
"Liberals" knocking "Conservatives", "Conservatives" knocking "Liberals".
OK, the media will not like it, and the late departed News of the World would never have thrived on it, but it takes me back forty years and why I first went into teaching.
Why is it not possible instead of trying to knock people down all the time, cannot we not instead try and create a world where we can raise people up, give them hopes, give them expectations, give them a chance to move forward with their lives with hope and a positive outlook?
If we are to admire success, why set the successful up as Aunt Sallies to be knocked over?
Why is respect an outmoded concept? Why cannot we learn to show decency and understanding towards people? Are we incapable of finding good in others, must cynicism always be the yardstick?
To the memory and respect of some people I knew and loved dearly during my childhood, I would offer this thought (in the week before my birthday) - rebuilding hope, giving people something better, making things better, creating a world that is better for everyone who is to come (and without inflicting suffering upon other species so we can get there).
Why is this not possible?
Monday, 11 July 2011
Should we really be surprised?
There is almost a massive furore going on in the UK this week about what was going on at the "News of the World", and how the owners felt that they had to close it down.
They were not just tapping 'phones and hacking into important personal information - they have been doing this seemingly forever - but apparently the reason for the concern was the nature of the people whose data was being hacked. Murder victims, relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
This was only the "News of the World". This was happening at one media outlet. This could not have been happening at its sister paper "The Sun" (published Monday to Saturday, while the "News of the World" only appeared on a Sunday). Could it?
Who is kidding whom? Anyone who believes that this search for profit-making news, while using tactics that are the lowest of the low, is simply the product of a few rogue journalists at one outlet, must be incredibly naive! It runs through the corporate culture of the whole organisation. Be nasty, expose, show people in their worst light, make the b*stards cringe. And we will make plenty of dosh!!!!
Nobody is to spared. Well almost nobody. This never happens to any members of the Murdoch family or the likes of Rebekah Brooks, but anyone else can be put through the proverbial mincer and in the glorious name of free speech and freedom of the press, it must not be stopped. And if it takes some extremely devious techniques to obtain the details, who cares?
Expecting standards to be raised, when they have plummeted the depths like this, is expecting some kind of miracle. Murdoch has grown richer and richer as a result of these techniques, why should he absolve himself now?
He didn't know this was going on? He didn't know that this exactly was going on? I won't risk putting myself on line for a charge of slander and say that he knew for certain (or encouraged it), but frankly it challenges all credibility to believe otherwise. If the dirt is in the sewers, the rats have to be sent to swim in there and look for the dirt. Responsibility as a result does not lie with the rats, it lands with the people who sent them there. Eventually the journalists may make something of a profit and maintain their lifestyle, but who benefits the most?
You got it! In one go!
This is corporate culture, not individual sin, and we would be naive to think otherwise! Nor should we be surprised that this was going on.
They were not just tapping 'phones and hacking into important personal information - they have been doing this seemingly forever - but apparently the reason for the concern was the nature of the people whose data was being hacked. Murder victims, relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
This was only the "News of the World". This was happening at one media outlet. This could not have been happening at its sister paper "The Sun" (published Monday to Saturday, while the "News of the World" only appeared on a Sunday). Could it?
Who is kidding whom? Anyone who believes that this search for profit-making news, while using tactics that are the lowest of the low, is simply the product of a few rogue journalists at one outlet, must be incredibly naive! It runs through the corporate culture of the whole organisation. Be nasty, expose, show people in their worst light, make the b*stards cringe. And we will make plenty of dosh!!!!
Nobody is to spared. Well almost nobody. This never happens to any members of the Murdoch family or the likes of Rebekah Brooks, but anyone else can be put through the proverbial mincer and in the glorious name of free speech and freedom of the press, it must not be stopped. And if it takes some extremely devious techniques to obtain the details, who cares?
Expecting standards to be raised, when they have plummeted the depths like this, is expecting some kind of miracle. Murdoch has grown richer and richer as a result of these techniques, why should he absolve himself now?
He didn't know this was going on? He didn't know that this exactly was going on? I won't risk putting myself on line for a charge of slander and say that he knew for certain (or encouraged it), but frankly it challenges all credibility to believe otherwise. If the dirt is in the sewers, the rats have to be sent to swim in there and look for the dirt. Responsibility as a result does not lie with the rats, it lands with the people who sent them there. Eventually the journalists may make something of a profit and maintain their lifestyle, but who benefits the most?
You got it! In one go!
This is corporate culture, not individual sin, and we would be naive to think otherwise! Nor should we be surprised that this was going on.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Getting to an age where you are not economically viable
I never wanted to get to the age of 50. There is something about being young and vibrant (both physically and intellectually). There is nothing to be said for aging - absolutely nothing. Everything that was good has gone. For good.
Yes, your brain, thanks to the benefits of experience, should still have its uses, but who is prepared to pay for your intellectual output?
Physically meanwhile, life is something of a joke. Nothing but nothing works the way that it should any more.
Sex, the thing that often saves you from despair in your younger years, becomes more like hard work than fun, and anyway the people with whom you would like to do it are most likely out of your reach.
And if you were hit by bad economies more than once in your prime earning years (as I was, thanks particularly to the awful Margaret Thatcher's wretched government in the UK in 1980s), the chances are that your savings will not amount to much.
And if you treat debt as an enemy to be avoided?
No, survival for its own sake is a ridiculous concept. Getting old has nothing to be recommended. There should be some way of avoiding ever getting there.
Yes, your brain, thanks to the benefits of experience, should still have its uses, but who is prepared to pay for your intellectual output?
Physically meanwhile, life is something of a joke. Nothing but nothing works the way that it should any more.
Sex, the thing that often saves you from despair in your younger years, becomes more like hard work than fun, and anyway the people with whom you would like to do it are most likely out of your reach.
And if you were hit by bad economies more than once in your prime earning years (as I was, thanks particularly to the awful Margaret Thatcher's wretched government in the UK in 1980s), the chances are that your savings will not amount to much.
And if you treat debt as an enemy to be avoided?
No, survival for its own sake is a ridiculous concept. Getting old has nothing to be recommended. There should be some way of avoiding ever getting there.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Becoming self-employed in Germany
Well, I came here to get away from unemployment elsewhere. I came here to work. I came here because I thought that they appreciated people who work hard, and try and get results. And were not too worried about age as they seem to be in a lot of other countries (see the UK where being over 40 makes you a permanent write-off).
I did not come here to receive the supposedly generous unemployment benefits.
So after losing my position at Procter and Gamble (see earlier posts), I finally decided not to put myself on the dole queue again (no thanks - see above). I looked at ways of becoming a self-employed translator.
Well the story so far - there has been over the past five weeks quite a lot of work and some promising money. The promise though has not yet come to anything despite the work and hours put in, as I am not yet officially anything. That is down to the fact that I have asked loads of people how to become self-employed officially (and checked numerous websites ....), and I could not get an appropriate answer.
Finally this morning - the answer. I went to see the IHK in Frankfurt (a bit like the chamber of commerce in the UK) and explained the situation.
No, I did not want to become a mini-Siemens or a mini-Volkswagen. All I wanted was to become a single person doing translation work for himself. Not being a big enough concern for them to break sweat over, the wonderful lady I spoke to sent me directly to ..... the Finanzamt (the tax office to you).
They gave me a form to fill in, realised that they did not understand my northern English German accent too well, and gave me another one that is typical of the species - long, asks a lot of strange questions, and takes forever to fill out. Anyway tomorrow, I can get this completed and cart it off to them again, become official (how long that will take?), get the VAT (MwSt here) set up, and away we go. Bang, boom, and straight down the road to bankruptcy!
Which is at least a change from the seemingly imposed poverty of the unemployment line .....
And at some point I shall have to deal with accountants (ugh!), and their strange view of the world. A month for an individual on Hartz IV (the local bottom end of the social security ladder) brings in €359. One single initial appointment with an accountant would, last week, have cost me €240. Hartz IV to self-employed via an accountant's office? I do not see it, it is a totally different world where costs and values are involved!
Anyway we will soon be up and running and totally official - and very likely still broke, but broke with my self-respect sort of intact.
I did not come here to receive the supposedly generous unemployment benefits.
So after losing my position at Procter and Gamble (see earlier posts), I finally decided not to put myself on the dole queue again (no thanks - see above). I looked at ways of becoming a self-employed translator.
Well the story so far - there has been over the past five weeks quite a lot of work and some promising money. The promise though has not yet come to anything despite the work and hours put in, as I am not yet officially anything. That is down to the fact that I have asked loads of people how to become self-employed officially (and checked numerous websites ....), and I could not get an appropriate answer.
Finally this morning - the answer. I went to see the IHK in Frankfurt (a bit like the chamber of commerce in the UK) and explained the situation.
No, I did not want to become a mini-Siemens or a mini-Volkswagen. All I wanted was to become a single person doing translation work for himself. Not being a big enough concern for them to break sweat over, the wonderful lady I spoke to sent me directly to ..... the Finanzamt (the tax office to you).
They gave me a form to fill in, realised that they did not understand my northern English German accent too well, and gave me another one that is typical of the species - long, asks a lot of strange questions, and takes forever to fill out. Anyway tomorrow, I can get this completed and cart it off to them again, become official (how long that will take?), get the VAT (MwSt here) set up, and away we go. Bang, boom, and straight down the road to bankruptcy!
Which is at least a change from the seemingly imposed poverty of the unemployment line .....
And at some point I shall have to deal with accountants (ugh!), and their strange view of the world. A month for an individual on Hartz IV (the local bottom end of the social security ladder) brings in €359. One single initial appointment with an accountant would, last week, have cost me €240. Hartz IV to self-employed via an accountant's office? I do not see it, it is a totally different world where costs and values are involved!
Anyway we will soon be up and running and totally official - and very likely still broke, but broke with my self-respect sort of intact.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Sometimes it is as well my wife struggles occasionally with English
She is from Thailand, highly educated, but a natural scientist, not a natural linguist!
Once in a while I try to discuss serious issues with her, particularly those that might affect her directly. She is very capable of understanding the issues, the English sometimes is a problem, though.
Today there were the elections in Thailand. Like many of the more educated Thai diaspora living abroad, she has nothing but contempt for the former Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, whom she (and many others) regards as corrupt.
He cannot return to Thailand without being locked up for two years for (yes, you got it first time) corruption, of which he was found guilty in court a few years ago - so he sits in his luxury villa in Dubai, pulling many of the strings in his native country.
Since he took his billions and headed off into luxurious exile, his influence has hardly waned. His party was disbanded - so his supporters founded another one, which was again barred for illegal practices.
So they founded another one, this time led by none other than Yingluck Shinawatra (yes, you heard the surname correctly), Thaksin's younger sister. They have apparently won a landslide today. It is, as I said, as well my wife did not understand everything that I was telling her about this half-an-hour ago!
Why they won the landslide - well some of the policies (cheap health care provision in the poorer parts of the country, for example) are very popular, and the Bangkok elite are despised in the provinces - coming from the north of England, I always hated the London elite, so I understand in a way!
But selecting the same corrupt (?) leader or his disciples, over and over again? There are accusations of vote-buying already floating around, but that is always the case in Thailand. Proving it is not going to be easy.
Either way it looks like another period of chaos, yellow shirts protesting on the streets rather than red shirts, and all the associated problems. They are normally such wonderful people, and the country has so much of cultural value to offer, you can only hope that the worst does not happen.
Somehow though, I fear that there will be little by way of resolution and harmony, and much by way of dispute and fragmentation over the next couple of years. And if the only focal point of unity in the country, the King, who is now an old man, were to die (and realise that his son is nowhere near as popular) - I hate to think what would happen.
Once in a while I try to discuss serious issues with her, particularly those that might affect her directly. She is very capable of understanding the issues, the English sometimes is a problem, though.
Today there were the elections in Thailand. Like many of the more educated Thai diaspora living abroad, she has nothing but contempt for the former Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, whom she (and many others) regards as corrupt.
He cannot return to Thailand without being locked up for two years for (yes, you got it first time) corruption, of which he was found guilty in court a few years ago - so he sits in his luxury villa in Dubai, pulling many of the strings in his native country.
Since he took his billions and headed off into luxurious exile, his influence has hardly waned. His party was disbanded - so his supporters founded another one, which was again barred for illegal practices.
So they founded another one, this time led by none other than Yingluck Shinawatra (yes, you heard the surname correctly), Thaksin's younger sister. They have apparently won a landslide today. It is, as I said, as well my wife did not understand everything that I was telling her about this half-an-hour ago!
Why they won the landslide - well some of the policies (cheap health care provision in the poorer parts of the country, for example) are very popular, and the Bangkok elite are despised in the provinces - coming from the north of England, I always hated the London elite, so I understand in a way!
But selecting the same corrupt (?) leader or his disciples, over and over again? There are accusations of vote-buying already floating around, but that is always the case in Thailand. Proving it is not going to be easy.
Either way it looks like another period of chaos, yellow shirts protesting on the streets rather than red shirts, and all the associated problems. They are normally such wonderful people, and the country has so much of cultural value to offer, you can only hope that the worst does not happen.
Somehow though, I fear that there will be little by way of resolution and harmony, and much by way of dispute and fragmentation over the next couple of years. And if the only focal point of unity in the country, the King, who is now an old man, were to die (and realise that his son is nowhere near as popular) - I hate to think what would happen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)