Read:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/27/world/americas/argentina-dirty-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Friday, 28 October 2011
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Referenda
I would recommend reading my piece from last month called "Really voting FOR something" before continuing with this.
If someone decided to put to the electorate an issue in a referendum where everyone was to receive a handout of say 20,000 Euro, would anyone vote against it? Even if some wise heads could see this for the bribe that it was and it could bankrupt the exchequer in no time?
Then if the government faced with a massive debt crisis which could close it down put in place a referendum where everyone would have to pay 12% of their income, immediately, to avoid the state's liquidation, how many people would vote for it, even though it was probably for the general good?
The whole problem with referenda is that they try to take complex issues and reduce them to a simple answer - yes or no. What then if "no" is the choice, despite the situation demanding some urgent action?
Wording the referendum is important, and then all sorts of political factors come into play. Is a government whose standing is at 25% going to win a referendum?
I recall being in Copenhagen, Denmark, on a business trip a few days after the Danish referendum on whether to join the Euro or not. I spent my time going out to the client site discussing the vote with the taxi driver who took me there - a Pakistani immigrant, who had no axe to grind. He informed me that 80 to 90% of the discussions before the vote had actually been about domestic politics and next to nothing to do with the Euro as a currency.
This I can believe. And yet, the Danes you would have imagined (according to stereotypes - always an unfortunate guide to the actual facts) are generally an educated, sophisticated people.
And there is also the undoubted truth - it is far easier to be opposed to something than to be for it. I can again for this example take you to the Occupy Wall Street / London / Germany usw movement(s) - to which I am generally sympathetic. That the banks have fouled up is self-evident (unless you are a member of the US Republican Party, but I digress). How you would put things right and avoid all the consequences of that foul-up - poverty, unemployment, underemployment usw - is another matter entirely.
It is, in other words, not just a simple "yes" or "no" situation. The "I do not like this, so get rid of it" approach simply does not work in the real world. A pragmatic solution has to follow. Bailing out the banks may seem to have been a bad idea, would letting them fail have been a good one?
Would we have no poverty and no unemployment if we had let them fail?
A referendum is far too simple a road to follow. The chances are that large numbers of people voting would not understand the issues and the consequences of their actions anyway. And there is also one of the sad truths of this world - minorities are often right!
In 1492 Columbus did not agree with the majority opinion that the world was flat. While we may jokingly remark that it might have been better if he had driven his fleet off the edge of the world, the fact remains that any referendum held at the time might have stopped him going. Which is an interesting point to bear in mind.
If someone decided to put to the electorate an issue in a referendum where everyone was to receive a handout of say 20,000 Euro, would anyone vote against it? Even if some wise heads could see this for the bribe that it was and it could bankrupt the exchequer in no time?
Then if the government faced with a massive debt crisis which could close it down put in place a referendum where everyone would have to pay 12% of their income, immediately, to avoid the state's liquidation, how many people would vote for it, even though it was probably for the general good?
The whole problem with referenda is that they try to take complex issues and reduce them to a simple answer - yes or no. What then if "no" is the choice, despite the situation demanding some urgent action?
Wording the referendum is important, and then all sorts of political factors come into play. Is a government whose standing is at 25% going to win a referendum?
I recall being in Copenhagen, Denmark, on a business trip a few days after the Danish referendum on whether to join the Euro or not. I spent my time going out to the client site discussing the vote with the taxi driver who took me there - a Pakistani immigrant, who had no axe to grind. He informed me that 80 to 90% of the discussions before the vote had actually been about domestic politics and next to nothing to do with the Euro as a currency.
This I can believe. And yet, the Danes you would have imagined (according to stereotypes - always an unfortunate guide to the actual facts) are generally an educated, sophisticated people.
And there is also the undoubted truth - it is far easier to be opposed to something than to be for it. I can again for this example take you to the Occupy Wall Street / London / Germany usw movement(s) - to which I am generally sympathetic. That the banks have fouled up is self-evident (unless you are a member of the US Republican Party, but I digress). How you would put things right and avoid all the consequences of that foul-up - poverty, unemployment, underemployment usw - is another matter entirely.
It is, in other words, not just a simple "yes" or "no" situation. The "I do not like this, so get rid of it" approach simply does not work in the real world. A pragmatic solution has to follow. Bailing out the banks may seem to have been a bad idea, would letting them fail have been a good one?
Would we have no poverty and no unemployment if we had let them fail?
A referendum is far too simple a road to follow. The chances are that large numbers of people voting would not understand the issues and the consequences of their actions anyway. And there is also one of the sad truths of this world - minorities are often right!
In 1492 Columbus did not agree with the majority opinion that the world was flat. While we may jokingly remark that it might have been better if he had driven his fleet off the edge of the world, the fact remains that any referendum held at the time might have stopped him going. Which is an interesting point to bear in mind.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Small-minded parochialism and petty nationalism
And other similar beliefs preponderant among a large number of British MPs and their constituents.
111 MPs (and not just backwoods Tories - the Labour MP for the place where I used to live was one of these 111, though telling the difference between his opinions on anything else that differs from those of the Tories is extremely difficult) voted for a referendum on British membership of the EU the other day. If they wanted a referendum, it sounds like that that equals "we want out entirely".
And where would they take the UK then? The British economy is based upon the same principles of speculation and debt that landed the US in a mess. In many respects the UK is already the 52nd state (Israel is de facto the 51st). Or creating a large version of Switzerland floating out somewhere in the North Atlantic? Well wasn't that the idea of Thatcherism? Get rid of the industrial base and create one huge bank?
Which is why IMHO the country is in one diabolical mess.
One factor to realise with the reduced industrial base is that much of the incoming capital investment over the last few years has been brought about by the establishment of plants by international (notably Asian) companies who liked being in an English-speaking country and also wanted to be in the EU with all its trading possibilities. Take the UK out of the EU, would they stay? Ireland is staunchly pro-EU, they have an English-language culture, moving there would not be that difficult .... And how many unemployed would that create? Check the 1980s for details.
Still if we want a referendum on the EU, why stop there? Why not have a referendum on what the "Occupy London" (the British spin-off of "Occupy Wall Street") supporters want - if they can define something positive as to what they want to see, rather than just protesting about what the banks have done, as evil as that may be!
AND IT IS DEFINITELY TIME FOR A REFERENDUM UPON WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO SPEND BILLIONS UPGRADING THE ANACHRONISM THAT IS THE INDEPENDENT BRITISH NUCLEAR WEAPON!!!!!
I anticipate that the 111 parochially minded individuals who want a referendum on British membership of the EU would agree!
They wouldn't? (Yes, I know perfectly well that they wouldn't!). Why not???? If government by referendum is the road to go (and the whole flawed thinking about holding referenda I will examine in a future post), then surely it would be logical to do so. But you do not simply hold one upon issues that suit you and your backwoods thinking, do you?
111 MPs (and not just backwoods Tories - the Labour MP for the place where I used to live was one of these 111, though telling the difference between his opinions on anything else that differs from those of the Tories is extremely difficult) voted for a referendum on British membership of the EU the other day. If they wanted a referendum, it sounds like that that equals "we want out entirely".
And where would they take the UK then? The British economy is based upon the same principles of speculation and debt that landed the US in a mess. In many respects the UK is already the 52nd state (Israel is de facto the 51st). Or creating a large version of Switzerland floating out somewhere in the North Atlantic? Well wasn't that the idea of Thatcherism? Get rid of the industrial base and create one huge bank?
Which is why IMHO the country is in one diabolical mess.
One factor to realise with the reduced industrial base is that much of the incoming capital investment over the last few years has been brought about by the establishment of plants by international (notably Asian) companies who liked being in an English-speaking country and also wanted to be in the EU with all its trading possibilities. Take the UK out of the EU, would they stay? Ireland is staunchly pro-EU, they have an English-language culture, moving there would not be that difficult .... And how many unemployed would that create? Check the 1980s for details.
Still if we want a referendum on the EU, why stop there? Why not have a referendum on what the "Occupy London" (the British spin-off of "Occupy Wall Street") supporters want - if they can define something positive as to what they want to see, rather than just protesting about what the banks have done, as evil as that may be!
AND IT IS DEFINITELY TIME FOR A REFERENDUM UPON WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO SPEND BILLIONS UPGRADING THE ANACHRONISM THAT IS THE INDEPENDENT BRITISH NUCLEAR WEAPON!!!!!
I anticipate that the 111 parochially minded individuals who want a referendum on British membership of the EU would agree!
They wouldn't? (Yes, I know perfectly well that they wouldn't!). Why not???? If government by referendum is the road to go (and the whole flawed thinking about holding referenda I will examine in a future post), then surely it would be logical to do so. But you do not simply hold one upon issues that suit you and your backwoods thinking, do you?
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
The good die (quite) young, the bad die wearing wigs?
The last few days have been challengingly different. An unrelated serious of unconnected detours through fact and unreality, between the seemingly turgid present and the suddenly recalled disppointments of a time that is really so long ago in my life.
I always try to avoid the "what might have been" moments of my life normally. As a pragmatist, what purpose does it serve?
Yesterday though came one of those moments. Like my most people getting older, I still seek out the music with which I grew up. Yesterday I had Melanie (Safka) on YouTube performing "Ruby Tuesday". Wonderful penetrating voice, hardly romantic.
It recalled though a girl called Karin in my final year at university in Swansea. I was a still immature, almost adolescent 22-year-old, she was a mature, "seen too much, done too much already" 21-year-old. Very attractive. No questions asked. She was flirting, I was very serious. Retrospectively it could never have worked, what would have happened if it had become a serious relationship?
And if I met her now at the age of 61 or 62? That is frightening, she could never get old.
A couple of my former university friends have died in recent years, I believe (I cannot prove the fact, but logic points in that direction). Both great guys, who went on to become excellent husbands and fathers. Neither of them saw 60. In this world when we have increasingly all the cures for everything?
And meanwhile somewhere in remotest Libya, the thoroughly awful former dictator Gadhafi was reaching an end that was almost inevitable and some 30 years too late. Apparently at the end, he was still wearing a wig! Arrogance takes some interesting forms, and he did not want his "people" ("subjects" is a better word? "Vassals" even better?) to see him greying and growing old!
Never thought that I would have any sympathy for a thug of that ilk, but I understand that totally! My hair is dyed though - wigs, hairpieces? Not my thing!!!!
I always try to avoid the "what might have been" moments of my life normally. As a pragmatist, what purpose does it serve?
Yesterday though came one of those moments. Like my most people getting older, I still seek out the music with which I grew up. Yesterday I had Melanie (Safka) on YouTube performing "Ruby Tuesday". Wonderful penetrating voice, hardly romantic.
It recalled though a girl called Karin in my final year at university in Swansea. I was a still immature, almost adolescent 22-year-old, she was a mature, "seen too much, done too much already" 21-year-old. Very attractive. No questions asked. She was flirting, I was very serious. Retrospectively it could never have worked, what would have happened if it had become a serious relationship?
And if I met her now at the age of 61 or 62? That is frightening, she could never get old.
A couple of my former university friends have died in recent years, I believe (I cannot prove the fact, but logic points in that direction). Both great guys, who went on to become excellent husbands and fathers. Neither of them saw 60. In this world when we have increasingly all the cures for everything?
And meanwhile somewhere in remotest Libya, the thoroughly awful former dictator Gadhafi was reaching an end that was almost inevitable and some 30 years too late. Apparently at the end, he was still wearing a wig! Arrogance takes some interesting forms, and he did not want his "people" ("subjects" is a better word? "Vassals" even better?) to see him greying and growing old!
Never thought that I would have any sympathy for a thug of that ilk, but I understand that totally! My hair is dyed though - wigs, hairpieces? Not my thing!!!!
Monday, 24 October 2011
One small step in the right direction
I am pleased that Gilad Shalit has been released by the militants in Gaza who have held him hostage for five years.
I cannot say that I am too convinced that releasing convicted prisoners in return for him is necessarily "a good thing". What is to stop someone else being kidnapped so that more prisoners can be exchanged for him/her at some point in the future? It sets a bad example.
My point about the Hamas - Israeli standoff remains what it was though. I am no fan of either the Israeli government nor of Hamas. Extreme attitudes produce extreme responses and extreme counter-responses, and progress to peace and common understanding will never be achieved that way.
Eventually though release of a hostage does indicate some ability to compromise - an important consideration in the development of a much-needed negotiation progress. We are still not even 1% of the way down the road to resolving the issues invoved, and the people of the area will continue to live a life on the knife-edge. Sadly for all concerned.
But any step down the road is better than no step at all, whatever misgivings you may have about some of the details involved.
I cannot say that I am too convinced that releasing convicted prisoners in return for him is necessarily "a good thing". What is to stop someone else being kidnapped so that more prisoners can be exchanged for him/her at some point in the future? It sets a bad example.
My point about the Hamas - Israeli standoff remains what it was though. I am no fan of either the Israeli government nor of Hamas. Extreme attitudes produce extreme responses and extreme counter-responses, and progress to peace and common understanding will never be achieved that way.
Eventually though release of a hostage does indicate some ability to compromise - an important consideration in the development of a much-needed negotiation progress. We are still not even 1% of the way down the road to resolving the issues invoved, and the people of the area will continue to live a life on the knife-edge. Sadly for all concerned.
But any step down the road is better than no step at all, whatever misgivings you may have about some of the details involved.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Follow-up to my previous posting
Well the world is supposed (again) to have ended. This time yesterday.
I am apparently still here .....
Which means one of two things applies.
Either I managed to avoid the catastrophe that hit everyone else (apart from the few people walking past the house as I speak).
Or everything is now an optical illusion, and I really am not here any more.
What gets me, if the latter is the case, is why the afterlife looks exactly like the life I just left ....
I am apparently still here .....
Which means one of two things applies.
Either I managed to avoid the catastrophe that hit everyone else (apart from the few people walking past the house as I speak).
Or everything is now an optical illusion, and I really am not here any more.
What gets me, if the latter is the case, is why the afterlife looks exactly like the life I just left ....
Thursday, 20 October 2011
The End! Brief and to the point
Apparently it will be the end of the world on Friday (according to one Harold Camping - he got it wrong in May, so to date his record on this is 0/1 - if his record goes to 0 and 2 he will be a good candidate to become a relief pitcher for the Red Sox).
Anyway thanks to all my handful of readers for your appreciative support through this past difficult year.
I would wish you a pleasant journey to eternity, but as I do not believe that there is an eternity to go to ....
Meanwhile I have a translation for a customer in Spain to finish. I can afford to get a few things wrong as nobody apparently will be around next week to check it!
Anyway thanks to all my handful of readers for your appreciative support through this past difficult year.
I would wish you a pleasant journey to eternity, but as I do not believe that there is an eternity to go to ....
Meanwhile I have a translation for a customer in Spain to finish. I can afford to get a few things wrong as nobody apparently will be around next week to check it!
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
The wonderful world of the inane Spam idiot
Every so often my Yahoo mail account finds its Spam box being rapidly filled with a load of gunge supposedly relating to male impotence drugs.
We are not talking one or two here - that is commonplace. We are talking about 20 or so an hour. Something of an epidemic in its way.
The point is though that it is junk. Absolute complete and obvious junk. If I wanted such items I would make a careful search of the Internet for reliable suppliers, I would certainly not answer a mail with all sorts of misspellings and in your face rhetoric.
So would be the story with most people, I would imagine.
So why do these idiots (polite word) send this stuff? It is of no interest to the vast majority of recipients, it is the cause of a degree of nuisance value, and that is about it. I have to check the Spam queue every so often (Yahoo has the occasional flaw which allows important, properly delivered mail to find its way accidentally into the Spam box).
For the rest though, this exercise in sending out mass junk strikes me as complete stupidity in action. It may give some puerile youth some momentary fun, but surely they can find something better to do with their time?
We are not talking one or two here - that is commonplace. We are talking about 20 or so an hour. Something of an epidemic in its way.
The point is though that it is junk. Absolute complete and obvious junk. If I wanted such items I would make a careful search of the Internet for reliable suppliers, I would certainly not answer a mail with all sorts of misspellings and in your face rhetoric.
So would be the story with most people, I would imagine.
So why do these idiots (polite word) send this stuff? It is of no interest to the vast majority of recipients, it is the cause of a degree of nuisance value, and that is about it. I have to check the Spam queue every so often (Yahoo has the occasional flaw which allows important, properly delivered mail to find its way accidentally into the Spam box).
For the rest though, this exercise in sending out mass junk strikes me as complete stupidity in action. It may give some puerile youth some momentary fun, but surely they can find something better to do with their time?
Monday, 17 October 2011
The Euro is about to implode?
I know this for a fact, I saw it staring me in the face on an Internet article this morning.
American or (very likely) British in origin I am not certain.
Explanations for this thinking? Rumour, conjecture, facts, explanations, details? NOWT!
It was simply stated as fact! Therefore it is bound to happen. Right? RIGHT????
Well, my anonymous friend, a short comment on this. Last week the Euro rose 3 cents against the US Dollar. So if the Euro is about to implode, what is going to happen to the Dollar? The Dollar cannot implode, can it? Sink, yes. Sink, sink, sink? Yes, yes, yes!
Stick your money in British Pounds instead? Latest rate for the Pound against the imploding Euro - 1.13. In 2009 the value was 1.43. Sounds like the Pound has already imploded!
Actually if you take a quick look at history you will discover that the Pound has sunk, sunk, sunk against whatever currency the (envy, envy GRRRR) Germans (envy, envy, GRRRR) have been using since 1971. The last time that I checked, the Pound had lost over 500% in value against the Mark or Euro over the past 40 years.
This does not stop the pundits in the UK from making their usual snide comments about the Euro (hee, hee it looks in a bad way). Curiously they seem incapable of noticing that despite all the Euro's problems, the Pound continues to struggle to retain parity against it! And this with a monetarist (hence encouraging ludicrously high unemployment and a disgustingly deflated economy) Conservative Party led government!
So, my anonymous friend, a little historical lesson for you. Whatever currency is backed by those responsible for the German economy, it will not only survive, it will eventually profit. Even the Swiss understand that (see the peg they introduced the other week to stop speculation).
The Euro is about to implode? Then I am about to marry a society heiress, move into a villa in the South of France and will be living on caviar and champagne for the rest of my existence. It won't happen? NO, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
American or (very likely) British in origin I am not certain.
Explanations for this thinking? Rumour, conjecture, facts, explanations, details? NOWT!
It was simply stated as fact! Therefore it is bound to happen. Right? RIGHT????
Well, my anonymous friend, a short comment on this. Last week the Euro rose 3 cents against the US Dollar. So if the Euro is about to implode, what is going to happen to the Dollar? The Dollar cannot implode, can it? Sink, yes. Sink, sink, sink? Yes, yes, yes!
Stick your money in British Pounds instead? Latest rate for the Pound against the imploding Euro - 1.13. In 2009 the value was 1.43. Sounds like the Pound has already imploded!
Actually if you take a quick look at history you will discover that the Pound has sunk, sunk, sunk against whatever currency the (envy, envy GRRRR) Germans (envy, envy, GRRRR) have been using since 1971. The last time that I checked, the Pound had lost over 500% in value against the Mark or Euro over the past 40 years.
This does not stop the pundits in the UK from making their usual snide comments about the Euro (hee, hee it looks in a bad way). Curiously they seem incapable of noticing that despite all the Euro's problems, the Pound continues to struggle to retain parity against it! And this with a monetarist (hence encouraging ludicrously high unemployment and a disgustingly deflated economy) Conservative Party led government!
So, my anonymous friend, a little historical lesson for you. Whatever currency is backed by those responsible for the German economy, it will not only survive, it will eventually profit. Even the Swiss understand that (see the peg they introduced the other week to stop speculation).
The Euro is about to implode? Then I am about to marry a society heiress, move into a villa in the South of France and will be living on caviar and champagne for the rest of my existence. It won't happen? NO, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Occupy Wall Street - Right or ....
As a non-American I have a lot of time for the aims and concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement, even if some of the excesses some people are carrying out in its name are doing the movement no favours.
The fact is that most people in the middle are moving downwards not upwards. The ways out have also proven phoney (get an education, qualifications usw, all of which lead to being "over-qualified", particularly when all that is wanted in the "McDonalds economy" is burger flippers! And these days stuck with a huge amount of debt, as the idea of quality education being paid for any other way has been abandoned).
They are "going global" with this (there is going to be an "Occupy Frankfurt" on Hauptwache at 1200 today - the shopping crowd will love them!). Fine - we also need it, many of us in Europe have been reduced to poverty in recent years and need a way out. Working your way out (in the "McDonalds economy" that we are also stuck with) is not an option - they send most of the "good jobs" these days to India and China as cheap labour - and do not start believing that the state benefit system does any more than provide a basic lifestyle. Unless of course you have dozens of children!
The only problem that I have with this movement is "will it achieve anything?". Rather like Communism fails as all it does is remove the creation of wealth leaving everyone struggling against poverty, so this movement could easily be great on the analysis of the problem, but lack positive solutions which raise people up, and restore living standards to the necessary level. I would have to hear how they intend solving it.
But as for their critics .... There was a brilliant item yesterday on Yahoo where the guy listed the various opponents of the movement. Fox News USA (run by millionaires), Rupert Murdoch (enough said), leading Republican Eric Cantor (a millionaire), radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh (a millionaire) usw. In other words people who have a vested interest in the movement's failure. Rather than criticising the movement, they should be setting in motion an alternative action policy where people can raise themselves up, and if by work and education - proving that it can be made to work.
For the masses, not the spoiled brat few!
It is definitely too late for me, but then I am not concerned merely about my own lifestyle. A better world for me means a better world for others as well. Being selfish is not one of my more pronounced tendencies. If I were to die in the next month, as is possible, then I would still wish the movement success in its aims.
Seeing an end to mass unemployment and mass under-employment, and no further impoverishment of the gifted and the talented, is vital to future generations, not just the current one.
The fact is that most people in the middle are moving downwards not upwards. The ways out have also proven phoney (get an education, qualifications usw, all of which lead to being "over-qualified", particularly when all that is wanted in the "McDonalds economy" is burger flippers! And these days stuck with a huge amount of debt, as the idea of quality education being paid for any other way has been abandoned).
They are "going global" with this (there is going to be an "Occupy Frankfurt" on Hauptwache at 1200 today - the shopping crowd will love them!). Fine - we also need it, many of us in Europe have been reduced to poverty in recent years and need a way out. Working your way out (in the "McDonalds economy" that we are also stuck with) is not an option - they send most of the "good jobs" these days to India and China as cheap labour - and do not start believing that the state benefit system does any more than provide a basic lifestyle. Unless of course you have dozens of children!
The only problem that I have with this movement is "will it achieve anything?". Rather like Communism fails as all it does is remove the creation of wealth leaving everyone struggling against poverty, so this movement could easily be great on the analysis of the problem, but lack positive solutions which raise people up, and restore living standards to the necessary level. I would have to hear how they intend solving it.
But as for their critics .... There was a brilliant item yesterday on Yahoo where the guy listed the various opponents of the movement. Fox News USA (run by millionaires), Rupert Murdoch (enough said), leading Republican Eric Cantor (a millionaire), radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh (a millionaire) usw. In other words people who have a vested interest in the movement's failure. Rather than criticising the movement, they should be setting in motion an alternative action policy where people can raise themselves up, and if by work and education - proving that it can be made to work.
For the masses, not the spoiled brat few!
It is definitely too late for me, but then I am not concerned merely about my own lifestyle. A better world for me means a better world for others as well. Being selfish is not one of my more pronounced tendencies. If I were to die in the next month, as is possible, then I would still wish the movement success in its aims.
Seeing an end to mass unemployment and mass under-employment, and no further impoverishment of the gifted and the talented, is vital to future generations, not just the current one.
Friday, 14 October 2011
The Amercan financial establishment knocking us on the head once more?
Comment one - I have American friends and I am not getting at them.
Comment two - I am not anti-American (though not the equivalent of a jingoist for another country either).
Rather the problem. In recent weeks we have had rating agencies like Moodys, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's taking pot shots at the economies of various European countries. Spain yesterday for example.
Moodys, Fitch and Standard and Poor's are independent private organisations as far as I am aware. They are based in the USA (no question). The point though arises, why is a PRIVATE AMERICAN organisation deciding what is good and what is bad with the economy of a country outside the USA?
We have for better or worse a "Global Economy" - not an American International economy. We have, like it or not (and a lot of the time I do not like it! Which incidentally does not turn me into a Communist or an anarchist) international capitalism at work.
So if we are going to get decisions on the credit ratings and the like of various countries, should that really be decided by PRIVATE AMERICAN organisations? Surely there should be some official international body (independent of government (including that of the USA) interference) involved in making these decisions?
Of course if you make something like that international, then the American conservative fringe (well that also includes the Republican Party to an extent) will not play along and probably want to take its ball home with it and play on its own - see the less sophisticated views that you get from there sometimes on the UN and NATO (if a latter-day Napoleon Bonaparte came along, would the Americans be prepared to let their troops serve under him?).
Nonetheless, I do not see that Europe should be subject to what are primarily American concerns. The European model can work and can be made to work IMHO (although the Greeks are trying everything they know how to disprove that). It needs though what all organisations and governments and individuals require - a commitment to treat debt as an enemy and not a friend and to plan accordingly. Restore and emphasise policies on national savings programmes, as we used to have in the UK when I was a child growing up.
And international efforts to close down tax loop-holes would also be a major help in achieving this success. The Greeks would very much benefit from working to sort that out in particular as quickly as possible.
Comment two - I am not anti-American (though not the equivalent of a jingoist for another country either).
Rather the problem. In recent weeks we have had rating agencies like Moodys, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's taking pot shots at the economies of various European countries. Spain yesterday for example.
Moodys, Fitch and Standard and Poor's are independent private organisations as far as I am aware. They are based in the USA (no question). The point though arises, why is a PRIVATE AMERICAN organisation deciding what is good and what is bad with the economy of a country outside the USA?
We have for better or worse a "Global Economy" - not an American International economy. We have, like it or not (and a lot of the time I do not like it! Which incidentally does not turn me into a Communist or an anarchist) international capitalism at work.
So if we are going to get decisions on the credit ratings and the like of various countries, should that really be decided by PRIVATE AMERICAN organisations? Surely there should be some official international body (independent of government (including that of the USA) interference) involved in making these decisions?
Of course if you make something like that international, then the American conservative fringe (well that also includes the Republican Party to an extent) will not play along and probably want to take its ball home with it and play on its own - see the less sophisticated views that you get from there sometimes on the UN and NATO (if a latter-day Napoleon Bonaparte came along, would the Americans be prepared to let their troops serve under him?).
Nonetheless, I do not see that Europe should be subject to what are primarily American concerns. The European model can work and can be made to work IMHO (although the Greeks are trying everything they know how to disprove that). It needs though what all organisations and governments and individuals require - a commitment to treat debt as an enemy and not a friend and to plan accordingly. Restore and emphasise policies on national savings programmes, as we used to have in the UK when I was a child growing up.
And international efforts to close down tax loop-holes would also be a major help in achieving this success. The Greeks would very much benefit from working to sort that out in particular as quickly as possible.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Heading for the great aviary in the sky?
For some reason best known to its followers, Christianity attaches souls to human beings only. Reptiles, insects etc. and a whole raft of other mammals do not have them. So when you get to Heaven, there will be no pigs or iguanas or mosquitoes to bother you - not even their souls.
Buddhism, a far less inconsistent religion than Christianity, does not travel down this road - it allows souls to exist for all living creatures, and given the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, you have to be very careful in this regard. My Buddhist wife will not let me swat flies in summer in the apartment. Who knows what I might be killing - anything from her reincarnated grandmother to a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
This afternoon, cursed with the depression that is our current financial disaster, I went for a walk down by the Main. If there is one last therapy available to me it is watching birds, and you get plenty down there. Some stray gulls who have followed the rivers (Main and Rhine) down from the faraway coast, ducks, and even crows of different types a-plenty (virtually the local symbol), even near a river, sparrows and wood pigeons, all of which perch on the trees next to the river.
This set me off thinking, again. What happens to birds when they die? In reality, not in religious myth for a moment.
I grew up in a seaside town, and I was used to seeing gulls in many varieties. In Holland when I lived there, I used to be fascinated by the number of grey herons "fishing" by the canals. While here we have the various members of the crow family.
It then struck me that I have never yet seen a dead gull, a dead heron, or a dead crow. Do they just fall out of they sky or off a tree and fall among the foliage and disappear among the leaves? My wife and I saw a badly injured young sparrow near the house the other week (broken wing or foot - no hospitals or surgeries for them of course, just a lingering death). A couple of hours later it was lying dead among the foliage - see above.
There are millions of birds on this planet, and many live a full life span. No pension funds for them though, so once they have lived out their time, they die as expected. But where do their corpses go? If you ever do see thousands of bird corpses it usually means that there has been a (human-inspired) disaster of some kind. Otherwise they seem to have the knack of simply disappearing.
And back to the "spiritual" context, one wonders what they do to move on according to Buddhist reincarnation theory. Some become moles, some become horses, some (sadly) even become human beings. Why? What decides this.
And of course the Christians may well have go it wrong. Young parent birds could easily be telling their chicks as they feed them not to be too greedy, or else they will not make it up to the great aviary in the sky when they die ....
Buddhism, a far less inconsistent religion than Christianity, does not travel down this road - it allows souls to exist for all living creatures, and given the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, you have to be very careful in this regard. My Buddhist wife will not let me swat flies in summer in the apartment. Who knows what I might be killing - anything from her reincarnated grandmother to a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
This afternoon, cursed with the depression that is our current financial disaster, I went for a walk down by the Main. If there is one last therapy available to me it is watching birds, and you get plenty down there. Some stray gulls who have followed the rivers (Main and Rhine) down from the faraway coast, ducks, and even crows of different types a-plenty (virtually the local symbol), even near a river, sparrows and wood pigeons, all of which perch on the trees next to the river.
This set me off thinking, again. What happens to birds when they die? In reality, not in religious myth for a moment.
I grew up in a seaside town, and I was used to seeing gulls in many varieties. In Holland when I lived there, I used to be fascinated by the number of grey herons "fishing" by the canals. While here we have the various members of the crow family.
It then struck me that I have never yet seen a dead gull, a dead heron, or a dead crow. Do they just fall out of they sky or off a tree and fall among the foliage and disappear among the leaves? My wife and I saw a badly injured young sparrow near the house the other week (broken wing or foot - no hospitals or surgeries for them of course, just a lingering death). A couple of hours later it was lying dead among the foliage - see above.
There are millions of birds on this planet, and many live a full life span. No pension funds for them though, so once they have lived out their time, they die as expected. But where do their corpses go? If you ever do see thousands of bird corpses it usually means that there has been a (human-inspired) disaster of some kind. Otherwise they seem to have the knack of simply disappearing.
And back to the "spiritual" context, one wonders what they do to move on according to Buddhist reincarnation theory. Some become moles, some become horses, some (sadly) even become human beings. Why? What decides this.
And of course the Christians may well have go it wrong. Young parent birds could easily be telling their chicks as they feed them not to be too greedy, or else they will not make it up to the great aviary in the sky when they die ....
Monday, 10 October 2011
Robert Burns - a tribute of sorts
I was standing on Frankfurt Griesheim station this morning, when I caught sight of a very attractive young woman. Reddish brown hair, smartly dressed and in a conversation with a blonde female friend who had a lot to say in very fluent German, even if she could not completely disguise her Eastern European origins.
The repressed ageing wolf in me was almost tempted to walk up to the young lady and comment in the best Scottish accent that I could muster:
"As fair art thou, my bonny lass".
Classic chat-up line? Not exactly. Even if she could speak excellent English, this is Germany, and she would have probably no clue what I was talking about ..... Waste of time given the age difference it would have been anyway, but I have to grow old disgracefully, don't I?
No? OK .... I did say "repressed wolf"!
So "as fair art thou, my bonny lass"? I am sure that I have also heard that incorrectly once as "as fair as thou, my ain true love".
Anyway it comes for those who do not know (cultural ignoramuses) from Robert Burns's poem "My love is like a red, red rose" - not the way that he spelt it incidentally.
I have been reading quite a bit of Burns's poetry recently. Wonderfully romantic stuff much of it is. Try his "Highland Mary" for starters. There is much in Burns's work that will awaken the romantic in all of us.
Not that his lifestyle quite reflected that. As a young man, at least, he was regarded as dissolute, a ladies man par excellence.
He was also what American conservatives call a "liberal" or more probably a ******* liberal! A man who appreciated and suffered along with the common man (realise that Burns could read and write in an era when those skills were limited to the select few).
That he had financial difficulties and eventually succumbed to heart disease (at the tender age of 37) puts him all the more in the "man after my own heart" category. I can empathise with him all the more in this knowledge.
Given my knack for ridiculous juxtaposition, I tried relocating him in time to the dreadful Thatcher years in the UK in the 1980s.
Here was a man who spoke English with a distinct regional accent (when Cockney and Home Counties English were seen as the only deviations from "Oxford English" that anyone was allowed to use, the rest were incorrectly indicative of ignorant lower class hoi paloi), who was concerned with the common man (rather than the banker and the speculator, the "alleged" heroes (!!!) of the Thatcher years), who did not live anywhere near London, nor probably wanted to (heathen!). And the tabloid press would have hammered him for his womanising!
Definitely someone I can come to admire more and more by the second, now I come to think about it!
Meanwhile where the young lady with the reddish-brown hair disappeared to this morning? I will never know. My still very lovable wife meanwhile is reverting from her usual very romantic anti-sexual self again and shouting as ever very unromantically into the 'phone, and I am musing upon Burns's not very romantic (but maybe highly enjoyable) follow-ups to his fascinating poetic chat lines.
"As fair art thou, my bonny lass ...."? Yes, I shall sadly spend most of the day wondering where that young lady went. Old repressed dissolute wolves have amazing difficulty coping with ageing and perpetual disappointments.
The repressed ageing wolf in me was almost tempted to walk up to the young lady and comment in the best Scottish accent that I could muster:
"As fair art thou, my bonny lass".
Classic chat-up line? Not exactly. Even if she could speak excellent English, this is Germany, and she would have probably no clue what I was talking about ..... Waste of time given the age difference it would have been anyway, but I have to grow old disgracefully, don't I?
No? OK .... I did say "repressed wolf"!
So "as fair art thou, my bonny lass"? I am sure that I have also heard that incorrectly once as "as fair as thou, my ain true love".
Anyway it comes for those who do not know (cultural ignoramuses) from Robert Burns's poem "My love is like a red, red rose" - not the way that he spelt it incidentally.
I have been reading quite a bit of Burns's poetry recently. Wonderfully romantic stuff much of it is. Try his "Highland Mary" for starters. There is much in Burns's work that will awaken the romantic in all of us.
Not that his lifestyle quite reflected that. As a young man, at least, he was regarded as dissolute, a ladies man par excellence.
He was also what American conservatives call a "liberal" or more probably a ******* liberal! A man who appreciated and suffered along with the common man (realise that Burns could read and write in an era when those skills were limited to the select few).
That he had financial difficulties and eventually succumbed to heart disease (at the tender age of 37) puts him all the more in the "man after my own heart" category. I can empathise with him all the more in this knowledge.
Given my knack for ridiculous juxtaposition, I tried relocating him in time to the dreadful Thatcher years in the UK in the 1980s.
Here was a man who spoke English with a distinct regional accent (when Cockney and Home Counties English were seen as the only deviations from "Oxford English" that anyone was allowed to use, the rest were incorrectly indicative of ignorant lower class hoi paloi), who was concerned with the common man (rather than the banker and the speculator, the "alleged" heroes (!!!) of the Thatcher years), who did not live anywhere near London, nor probably wanted to (heathen!). And the tabloid press would have hammered him for his womanising!
Definitely someone I can come to admire more and more by the second, now I come to think about it!
Meanwhile where the young lady with the reddish-brown hair disappeared to this morning? I will never know. My still very lovable wife meanwhile is reverting from her usual very romantic anti-sexual self again and shouting as ever very unromantically into the 'phone, and I am musing upon Burns's not very romantic (but maybe highly enjoyable) follow-ups to his fascinating poetic chat lines.
"As fair art thou, my bonny lass ...."? Yes, I shall sadly spend most of the day wondering where that young lady went. Old repressed dissolute wolves have amazing difficulty coping with ageing and perpetual disappointments.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
All I ever wanted from life
1. A job that I enjoyed doing, and could do well.
2. Enough money so that I could meet all the basic needs, always pay the bills on time, never get into debt, have some spare to travel with, and the ability to save something for the future (through safe investment, not through wild speculation).
3. Good quality regular sex (preferably with the woman of my dreams who would appreciate my presence).
4. A number of good, reliable, intelligent friends.
Houses, cars, massive wealth etc? What would I do with them? Children? Not that bothered, all things considered.
I cannot see what is wrong with the above list, but it has been impossible to achieve ....
2. Enough money so that I could meet all the basic needs, always pay the bills on time, never get into debt, have some spare to travel with, and the ability to save something for the future (through safe investment, not through wild speculation).
3. Good quality regular sex (preferably with the woman of my dreams who would appreciate my presence).
4. A number of good, reliable, intelligent friends.
Houses, cars, massive wealth etc? What would I do with them? Children? Not that bothered, all things considered.
I cannot see what is wrong with the above list, but it has been impossible to achieve ....
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
The Amanda Knox case, and the usual media nonsense
First comment on the Amanda Knox case. My heart goes out to the family and friends of the victim, Meredith Kercher, who died a gruesome and unnecessary death.
On the verdict yesterday my views are as follows:
1. The Italian Appeal Court got it right. There was insufficient evidence to produce a guilty verdict, and in the light of that fact alone, the initial verdict was a mistake.
2. I happen to believe, based upon what I have read of the case, that neither Knox nor her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were involved in Meredith Kercher's sad death. Motive, among other things, seems to be totally lacking in this regard.
The problem with this case is the way that the tabloid media have once more got into an "us against them" mentality. Kercher was "good" therefore Knox was obviously "bad". Kercher was a nice girl who was brutally murdered, therefore Knox was fundamentally evil and unquestionably guilty.
Fine? Or rather not fine! This is nonsensical logic, an adversarial situation that makes no sense, and does not apply in any rational analysis of the case.
This taking sides has badly affected coverage of the case. People step back from the facts and trade insults, and based upon what? It makes no sense. And does not reflect the situation that existed before the case arose.
Maybe it is just me, but I had the sense also that Knox was being presumed guilty because she was American. It is, unusually for the British tabloid press who nearly always automatically assume that the Americans can do no wrong (see the Iraq War), strange to find this predominant anti-American tone. In fact I cannot remember the like since the Louise Woodward case back in 1998.
But when one of "theirs" does something unpleasant to one of "ours" (allegedly!), out come the proverbial knives ....
Continental Europeans get this all the time from the nauseous British tabloids, so I imagine that the Americans have to expect it some time.
But unfortunately it does not help us reach objective judgements in cases like this.
Meredith Kercher's death, I repeat, is a cause for immense sadness. Amanda Knox being locked up for four years for a murder that she very probably did not commit, though, was not the response that this dreadful business required. Approached rationally, we should look at the problem objectively, find the real culprit (probably Rudy Gueye, who is already serving 16 years for the offence) and unleash any proverbial venom upon him.
Meanwhile hopefully Amanda Knox can go back to Seattle and disappear into oblivion - if the often nauseous American media will let her ....
On the verdict yesterday my views are as follows:
1. The Italian Appeal Court got it right. There was insufficient evidence to produce a guilty verdict, and in the light of that fact alone, the initial verdict was a mistake.
2. I happen to believe, based upon what I have read of the case, that neither Knox nor her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were involved in Meredith Kercher's sad death. Motive, among other things, seems to be totally lacking in this regard.
The problem with this case is the way that the tabloid media have once more got into an "us against them" mentality. Kercher was "good" therefore Knox was obviously "bad". Kercher was a nice girl who was brutally murdered, therefore Knox was fundamentally evil and unquestionably guilty.
Fine? Or rather not fine! This is nonsensical logic, an adversarial situation that makes no sense, and does not apply in any rational analysis of the case.
This taking sides has badly affected coverage of the case. People step back from the facts and trade insults, and based upon what? It makes no sense. And does not reflect the situation that existed before the case arose.
Maybe it is just me, but I had the sense also that Knox was being presumed guilty because she was American. It is, unusually for the British tabloid press who nearly always automatically assume that the Americans can do no wrong (see the Iraq War), strange to find this predominant anti-American tone. In fact I cannot remember the like since the Louise Woodward case back in 1998.
But when one of "theirs" does something unpleasant to one of "ours" (allegedly!), out come the proverbial knives ....
Continental Europeans get this all the time from the nauseous British tabloids, so I imagine that the Americans have to expect it some time.
But unfortunately it does not help us reach objective judgements in cases like this.
Meredith Kercher's death, I repeat, is a cause for immense sadness. Amanda Knox being locked up for four years for a murder that she very probably did not commit, though, was not the response that this dreadful business required. Approached rationally, we should look at the problem objectively, find the real culprit (probably Rudy Gueye, who is already serving 16 years for the offence) and unleash any proverbial venom upon him.
Meanwhile hopefully Amanda Knox can go back to Seattle and disappear into oblivion - if the often nauseous American media will let her ....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)