The American psychic, Sylvia Browne charges, apparently, $750 a reading.
Nice work if you can get it.
She has also been more wrong more often than virtually any other well-known psychic in the public gaze. See her comment to Shaun Hornbeck's parents that their son was dead, for example.
So maybe if I get a few things wrong, maybe people will offer me only €350 a reading? Sound good? Cheap? I only take Euro though, not US$ or Pounds (what would I do with worthless currencies like Pounds for starters?).
So. 10 predictions.
1. Romney is elected US President in 2012. The Republicans (after being responsible for the amazing policies which brought about the 2008 crash) sweep Congress. They promise the same as before which was of course extremely successful. Meanwhile the war with Iran will not take place in 2012 - and I am not allowed here to predict anything about 2013, so ....
2. The UK officially goes back into recession. Cameron informs the UK public that it is not his government which is to blame and it is obviously the EU that is at fault.
3. The UK also has to go to the IMF for a bailout. Cameron informs the UK public that it is not his government which is to blame and it is obviously the EU that is at fault.
4. The Pound falls to a new all-time record low against the plummetting Euro. Cameron informs the UK public that it is not his government which is to blame and it is obviously the EU that is at fault.
5. The BNP wins a string of by-elections across various parts of England, by promising to repatriate large numbers of people who were born in the UK, whose parents were born in the UK, and whose grandparents were born in the UK. Nick Griffin describes them as "undesirable aliens".
6. Scotland holds a referendum on independence from the UK which attracts a support level of 75%. Cameron informs his party and the rest of the UK that this is not a sign that the UK as a country is falling apart, and reassures everyone that his government is extremely popular everywhere as it always does the right thing for the country as a whole.
7. Germany manages to pay more money into the Greek exchequer than the entire population of Greece manages as a combined total. The new Greek Finance Minister assures Berlin that there are absolutely no signs of tax evasion in the country.
8. Israel, while testing one of the nuclear warheads that it purportedly does not have, manages to land it on a Palestinian refugee settlement in Gaza. A spokesman in Tel-Aviv describes the incident as "unfortunate", but points out that little serious damage was done, as there is little left in Gaza to which serious damage can be done.
Meanwhile the US government, on hearing this, berates Iran for being a dangerous nuclear threat, while the Republican Party (on the ball with world affairs as ever) sees this as one further reason for a fullscale attack on Teheran and lashes into Obama for not launching Enola Gay II immediately.
9. The English tabloid press, which knows more about football (soccer) than the rest of the world combined, predicts before the event that England are racing certainties to win Euro 2012, and confidently predict a 10-0 drubbing of Spain (obviously a 3rd rate team) in the final. In the event Spain win the tournament by beating Germany in the final again. England's main contribution is the usual erudite analysis of the team's performance (on the field - not what Wayne Rooney was doing in the hotel and elsewhere) in the tabloid press. The Murdoch tabloid press also have to send two journalists home for misconduct - apparently both knew who Xavi was and, worse still, they could almost pronounce his name correctly!
10. Unemployment percentages around the world begin to sink rapidly as governments find interesting new ways to disguise the non-working as something other than "unemployed". It is predicted that by 2020, that the number of non-unemployed non-working individuals in Europe will have risen to 97%.
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Monday, 19 December 2011
Understanding the need for war
I was in Bangkok in 2003 when the war drums for the invasion of Iraq were loudest.
There was an article in the English-language Bangkok Post written by Maureen Dowd, a noticeably liberal writer for the New York Times.
She noted that there was no proof of the Iraqi nuclear weapon, while everyone knew that North Korea had one, and logically if you should invade anywhere, that anywhere should be North Korea not Iraq.
Today, as the drum beats for invading Iran beat ever louder from the US Republican Party (fortunately they are not in power where it matters), the news came that Kim Jong Il had died, and there was new leadership in Pyongyang.
Perhaps the new leader of North Korea (Kim's son, and since when by the textbook reading of Marxism has anything to do with Communism got to do with passing on a royal line - the Party should be up in arms at the thought. OK, I know, Communism does not work!) will bring his added testosterone to the situation and fire the button ....
Nobody though is talking about invading North Korea, despite the obvious dangers that the regime there poses. Why Iran and not North Korea?
Two possible answers:
1. Israel dictates US (or at least Republican Party) foreign policy. If South Korea or Japan had as much influence, maybe something might happen in North Korea!
2. North Korea has no oil ....
OK, persuade me that I am wrong!
And I am not advocating that there should be a war in North Korea either, though something needs to be done to help the North Korean people - textbook Marxism should not allow for malnutrition and starving children (OK, I know, Communism does not work!).
But it is nonetheless notable that the advocates of war are more concerned by a state that might possess a nuclear weapon in several years time as against a hostile one that already is known to have one!
There was an article in the English-language Bangkok Post written by Maureen Dowd, a noticeably liberal writer for the New York Times.
She noted that there was no proof of the Iraqi nuclear weapon, while everyone knew that North Korea had one, and logically if you should invade anywhere, that anywhere should be North Korea not Iraq.
Today, as the drum beats for invading Iran beat ever louder from the US Republican Party (fortunately they are not in power where it matters), the news came that Kim Jong Il had died, and there was new leadership in Pyongyang.
Perhaps the new leader of North Korea (Kim's son, and since when by the textbook reading of Marxism has anything to do with Communism got to do with passing on a royal line - the Party should be up in arms at the thought. OK, I know, Communism does not work!) will bring his added testosterone to the situation and fire the button ....
Nobody though is talking about invading North Korea, despite the obvious dangers that the regime there poses. Why Iran and not North Korea?
Two possible answers:
1. Israel dictates US (or at least Republican Party) foreign policy. If South Korea or Japan had as much influence, maybe something might happen in North Korea!
2. North Korea has no oil ....
OK, persuade me that I am wrong!
And I am not advocating that there should be a war in North Korea either, though something needs to be done to help the North Korean people - textbook Marxism should not allow for malnutrition and starving children (OK, I know, Communism does not work!).
But it is nonetheless notable that the advocates of war are more concerned by a state that might possess a nuclear weapon in several years time as against a hostile one that already is known to have one!
All I want for Christmas
OK, you should have read the previous item first!
A shopping list:
1. A regular source of income that will pay all the bills, and leave something spare for the future. Working for a living, preferably employed by someone else, and definitely using the talents that I have, not the ones I would never have in the proverbial month of Sundays.
2. My sex drive back where it was when I was 25, and the chance to use it regularly (miracle cures needed and not just for myself).
3. Despite my atheism - a Biblical quote for you. Peace on earth, goodwill towards men (and women!). And an end to politicians and religious leaders, wherever they are, screaming for war for any reason. And downtoning the nationalism and increasingly sordid racism in Europe would help. I do not like Islam, but anyone who thinks that burning down mosques resolves anything ....
4. An effort for once and for all to ensure wild life habitats are properly maintained. With the thought that human beings are not the only animals living on this planet. And as we are the ones who supposedly have brains which allow us to think!
Mailed electronically to Santa and good luck to the hardworking reindeer, the one time of the year that a significant species gets some recognition!
A shopping list:
1. A regular source of income that will pay all the bills, and leave something spare for the future. Working for a living, preferably employed by someone else, and definitely using the talents that I have, not the ones I would never have in the proverbial month of Sundays.
2. My sex drive back where it was when I was 25, and the chance to use it regularly (miracle cures needed and not just for myself).
3. Despite my atheism - a Biblical quote for you. Peace on earth, goodwill towards men (and women!). And an end to politicians and religious leaders, wherever they are, screaming for war for any reason. And downtoning the nationalism and increasingly sordid racism in Europe would help. I do not like Islam, but anyone who thinks that burning down mosques resolves anything ....
4. An effort for once and for all to ensure wild life habitats are properly maintained. With the thought that human beings are not the only animals living on this planet. And as we are the ones who supposedly have brains which allow us to think!
Mailed electronically to Santa and good luck to the hardworking reindeer, the one time of the year that a significant species gets some recognition!
'Tis the season to be jolly?
It is Christmas next week. Ho-hum, yawn, pass me the sleeping tablets and wake me up on the 27th .....
When people mention "Christmas", I am always reminded of the "Andy Williams Christmas Show" that the BBC used to import in the 1960s, and Andy singing the song "It's the most wonderful time of the year". All the references in that show to snow and reindeer usw, and then you remember that the show was recorded in Los Angeles where snow never falls!
Most wonderful time of the year? Not IMHO. The season to be jolly? Ditto.
As an atheist, the religious side of it is irrelevant to me, though rather like with Ramadan (another irrelevant celebration IMHO), I will happily let those who want to enjoy the event sensibly and in context, do so. The problem is just about everything else - the forced celebrations, the ridiculous excesses, and the way that much of the world is forcibly closed down for a protracted period.
In some places it is worse than others. In the UK for years now there have been no trains on December 25th and 26th. So you had better drive a car if you want to visit people who do not live locally - and you had better not drink and drive either! The Germans are, as ever (as might be expected!) more sensible about this - running a limited Bank Holiday schedule.
But the forced celebrations are really the annoying part. I recall one cynic remarking that Christmas is the time when people get together with others that they have not seen for a year and quickly realise why they did not want to see them for all that year!
In my eyes that piece of cynicism is totally and sadly accurate. The whole event also is overhyped, the expectations are far too great and the need to eat too much food, drink too much alcohol and all the other excesses that follow .... No thanks.
Since 1977 I have managed to avoid most Christmas gatherings, since 1991 I have avoided them entirely. My wife and I had a romantic candlelight dinner together a couple of years ago. Last year and this year she was and will be working (I also have an ambition, never to be fulfilled now, to be working in paid employment on December 25th!). That is as far as it goes or has gone.
There are some quite serious points here though. If you want to celebrate why does it have to be on any one day of the year? If you want to get together with your family and/or friends, why at this one particular time? And surely generosity is not, and should not be, limited to one small period of the year at the end of December!
As it is, it remains my view that far from being the most wonderful time of the year, it is actually the time when you see the very worst of people, behaving in a fashion that hardly does them credit. If you want to see the traditional "seven deadly sins" fully activated, there is no better time than this.
And excess also has its negative side. There is over the Christmas and New Year period in most countries across the Western world an upsurge in suicide attempts, whether successful or otherwise. People who are vulnerable are most subject to black and bleak moods during all the forced celebrations. For them it is anything but the season to be jolly.
And frankly I can understand why!
When people mention "Christmas", I am always reminded of the "Andy Williams Christmas Show" that the BBC used to import in the 1960s, and Andy singing the song "It's the most wonderful time of the year". All the references in that show to snow and reindeer usw, and then you remember that the show was recorded in Los Angeles where snow never falls!
Most wonderful time of the year? Not IMHO. The season to be jolly? Ditto.
As an atheist, the religious side of it is irrelevant to me, though rather like with Ramadan (another irrelevant celebration IMHO), I will happily let those who want to enjoy the event sensibly and in context, do so. The problem is just about everything else - the forced celebrations, the ridiculous excesses, and the way that much of the world is forcibly closed down for a protracted period.
In some places it is worse than others. In the UK for years now there have been no trains on December 25th and 26th. So you had better drive a car if you want to visit people who do not live locally - and you had better not drink and drive either! The Germans are, as ever (as might be expected!) more sensible about this - running a limited Bank Holiday schedule.
But the forced celebrations are really the annoying part. I recall one cynic remarking that Christmas is the time when people get together with others that they have not seen for a year and quickly realise why they did not want to see them for all that year!
In my eyes that piece of cynicism is totally and sadly accurate. The whole event also is overhyped, the expectations are far too great and the need to eat too much food, drink too much alcohol and all the other excesses that follow .... No thanks.
Since 1977 I have managed to avoid most Christmas gatherings, since 1991 I have avoided them entirely. My wife and I had a romantic candlelight dinner together a couple of years ago. Last year and this year she was and will be working (I also have an ambition, never to be fulfilled now, to be working in paid employment on December 25th!). That is as far as it goes or has gone.
There are some quite serious points here though. If you want to celebrate why does it have to be on any one day of the year? If you want to get together with your family and/or friends, why at this one particular time? And surely generosity is not, and should not be, limited to one small period of the year at the end of December!
As it is, it remains my view that far from being the most wonderful time of the year, it is actually the time when you see the very worst of people, behaving in a fashion that hardly does them credit. If you want to see the traditional "seven deadly sins" fully activated, there is no better time than this.
And excess also has its negative side. There is over the Christmas and New Year period in most countries across the Western world an upsurge in suicide attempts, whether successful or otherwise. People who are vulnerable are most subject to black and bleak moods during all the forced celebrations. For them it is anything but the season to be jolly.
And frankly I can understand why!
Thursday, 15 December 2011
Please Repeat After Me 100 Times - HITLER IS DEAD
And has been for 65 years and has absolutely no influence upon current German government policy at all!
Last week, the week when David Cameron made himself, and by extension the whole of the UK, look completely arrogant and out of touch (with everyone except his fellow isolationists within the UK), I saw a couple of interesting pieces which were sadly typical.
Firstly there was an item on one forum where Germany and Iran were mentioned in some context or other. One British commenter (as against commentator) remarked that this was to be expected as Hitler and Ahmedinajad belonged together. Fine, except for the fact they were never alive at the same time, current Germany is a democracy not a Fascist dictatorship, few people want Hitler back and his influence here is nil. Ahmedinajad would, if he wanted to, have considerable difficulty talking to him (and I do not think that Shia Muslims are into spiritualism).
Typical of this though is the fact that even now many people in the UK cannot get Hitler out of their system, and falsely associate all things German with him. The fact that the Germans look upon him now as a thoroughly evil b*stard of the lowest type would never get into their thick skulls.
As for how many people in the UK could name the current German Chancellor and what she actually believes .... Not all that many is my opinion if this ridiculous fixation is anything to go by.
Consequently when I hear that 57% of people in the UK think that Cameron did the right thing, I take it with a pinch of salt.
How many of them actually understood the issues involved, how many understood the consequences of his actions, how many of them believe that the UK does not need any friends or allies? When many people still put Hitler and Germany automatically together even now, I would question the intelligence, logical basis and soundness of their thinking upon significant issues such as this. So this 57% is meaningless.
Which is not to say that the agreement last week was necessarily a "good thing" - though I would agree that keeping the Euro afloat was absolutely necessary. Cameron may have believed that it was bad for the City of London and therefore bad for the UK, I have seen enough contrary arguments this week which suggest that people across Europe are being sacrificed for the needs of the banking system and the fat cats who received all the handouts the last time. As the City of London is the ultimate home (in Europe at least) of the banking fat cats, you would wonder by this argument why Cameron vetoed it - and why the rest spinelessly did not!
Eventually there is also the argument - if an agreement had been reached which would have decimated industry across the North of England and thrown 1000s out of work as a result, that would have been "bad for the UK", or is it only a question of the City of London? Anyway it didn't need a decision by the EU to bring about the action described above (closing down industry in the North of England, throwing 1000s out of work etc) - THE TORIES DID THIS AS A MATTER OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IN THE 1980s!!!!
So what is, in other words, good for the UK, is more a question of arbitrary political definition than anything that can be objectively defined!
There have, despite the 57% support from the sheep (actually that is insulting to real sheep thinking about it), been some voices of sense (though not from the feeble government coalition partners, the Lib Dems, who as a pro-EU party should have forced a vote of confidence and possibly brought the government down), particularly from Alex Salmond and the SNP.
Of course the Scots can (and will if they have any sense) vote for independence in a referendum. The City of London is a long way from Scotland, and the Scots will take some persuading that it is the most important part of the UK.
Meanwhile Hitler's remains must be turning in their bunker. I can imagine of course that his ghost will be pleased to see that so many people in the UK remember him with seeming affection. And some of his committed deeply nationalistic thinking is well entrenched in growing political forces like the BNP and UKIP (and even at times rears its ugly head in the British Conservative Party).
Meanwhile though for everyone across Europe (including the UK), we had better prepare ourselves for several years of proverbial famine, where only the bankers seem to get more prosperous and fatter. Restoring economies, getting people back to work, creating prosperity for the masses, and combatting increasing poverty seem to ever more distant objectives.
Last week, the week when David Cameron made himself, and by extension the whole of the UK, look completely arrogant and out of touch (with everyone except his fellow isolationists within the UK), I saw a couple of interesting pieces which were sadly typical.
Firstly there was an item on one forum where Germany and Iran were mentioned in some context or other. One British commenter (as against commentator) remarked that this was to be expected as Hitler and Ahmedinajad belonged together. Fine, except for the fact they were never alive at the same time, current Germany is a democracy not a Fascist dictatorship, few people want Hitler back and his influence here is nil. Ahmedinajad would, if he wanted to, have considerable difficulty talking to him (and I do not think that Shia Muslims are into spiritualism).
Typical of this though is the fact that even now many people in the UK cannot get Hitler out of their system, and falsely associate all things German with him. The fact that the Germans look upon him now as a thoroughly evil b*stard of the lowest type would never get into their thick skulls.
As for how many people in the UK could name the current German Chancellor and what she actually believes .... Not all that many is my opinion if this ridiculous fixation is anything to go by.
Consequently when I hear that 57% of people in the UK think that Cameron did the right thing, I take it with a pinch of salt.
How many of them actually understood the issues involved, how many understood the consequences of his actions, how many of them believe that the UK does not need any friends or allies? When many people still put Hitler and Germany automatically together even now, I would question the intelligence, logical basis and soundness of their thinking upon significant issues such as this. So this 57% is meaningless.
Which is not to say that the agreement last week was necessarily a "good thing" - though I would agree that keeping the Euro afloat was absolutely necessary. Cameron may have believed that it was bad for the City of London and therefore bad for the UK, I have seen enough contrary arguments this week which suggest that people across Europe are being sacrificed for the needs of the banking system and the fat cats who received all the handouts the last time. As the City of London is the ultimate home (in Europe at least) of the banking fat cats, you would wonder by this argument why Cameron vetoed it - and why the rest spinelessly did not!
Eventually there is also the argument - if an agreement had been reached which would have decimated industry across the North of England and thrown 1000s out of work as a result, that would have been "bad for the UK", or is it only a question of the City of London? Anyway it didn't need a decision by the EU to bring about the action described above (closing down industry in the North of England, throwing 1000s out of work etc) - THE TORIES DID THIS AS A MATTER OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IN THE 1980s!!!!
So what is, in other words, good for the UK, is more a question of arbitrary political definition than anything that can be objectively defined!
There have, despite the 57% support from the sheep (actually that is insulting to real sheep thinking about it), been some voices of sense (though not from the feeble government coalition partners, the Lib Dems, who as a pro-EU party should have forced a vote of confidence and possibly brought the government down), particularly from Alex Salmond and the SNP.
Of course the Scots can (and will if they have any sense) vote for independence in a referendum. The City of London is a long way from Scotland, and the Scots will take some persuading that it is the most important part of the UK.
Meanwhile Hitler's remains must be turning in their bunker. I can imagine of course that his ghost will be pleased to see that so many people in the UK remember him with seeming affection. And some of his committed deeply nationalistic thinking is well entrenched in growing political forces like the BNP and UKIP (and even at times rears its ugly head in the British Conservative Party).
Meanwhile though for everyone across Europe (including the UK), we had better prepare ourselves for several years of proverbial famine, where only the bankers seem to get more prosperous and fatter. Restoring economies, getting people back to work, creating prosperity for the masses, and combatting increasing poverty seem to ever more distant objectives.
Sunday, 11 December 2011
Jealousy, Gays and Selective Thinking
To be subjective rather than objective (as will be most of this article), it has been an interesting few days for me on various websites, including of course the centre piece of my Internet universe - this blog.
Firstly I have been accused of jealousy (being jealous of Lindsay Lohan, American actress and recidivist criminal, to be precise)
Secondly I have been told that I must be Gay or at least a Gay sympathiser. It was also suggested that I am a Muslim sympathiser (check out the bulk of the items on this blog, you will soon be persuaded otherwise, and also remember that fundamentalist Muslims regard homosexuality as a cardinal sin, so logically (as ever) I cannot be a sympathiser both with Gays and Muslims simultaneously, right?).
Whether I should be jealous of someone who has to do Community Service (rather than jail time) in a morgue is very much open to doubt. I do not make a point of envying other people anyway, most of the time my concern is to see a rise in the economic circumstances of those who need it, want it, and are prepared to work to get it. I do not actually wish to deny the right of people to be wealthy. I will only criticise such when you have an economic system that works purely to make a few people wealthy while large numbers of people remain hamstrung in poverty with no way out (also known as the "McDonalds economy"!).
You can raise the standard of living of the people at the bottom end to a reasonable level, and see an end to unemployment while we are it, while allowing the wealthy to stay wealthy? Fine. But we are not going in that direction. Rather we are watching the impoverishment of people who were once in the middle (well lower middle actually) by sending worthwhile jobs as cheap labour elsewhere in the world, while creating more "burger flippers"! And try getting a job in IT after the age of 55!
And so to Gays. I have never once mentioned that subject upon my blog. I never discuss it on other fora either. I am an old man now, who always was heterosexual. I make a point though of not interfering with lifestyle choices for people who do not fit the same description. That is a personal choice for them to make.
This is not what I always thought. I used to be sceptical of why a man would want to have sex with another man, and I still do not really understand the desire, but I will not interfere in other people's choices (nor should any legal authority unless consent does not exist). It is not my issue. Everything said, finish, move on.
What we are seeing increasingly though in most areas of debate upon current affairs is something that I first saw raised in my first year at University. We were presented with an analysis of Voltaire's work "Candide" where the author deliberately simplified facts and excluded significant details to get a point over.
If you only present a proportion of the facts (or twist the facts so that they are not facts at all), you can always win your argument. The less detail that you have, the more erroneous your conclusions are liable to be, though. There is a basic flaw, as you learn when studying classic Aristotelian logic - namely arguing from a particular standpoint to reach a general conclusion.
There are loads of examples that can be used, politicians do this all the time - sadly. The point being though conclusions are only valid when you have taken all the facts into account, and reached a conclusion by tying them altogether. Some of the criticism aimed in my direction in the past few days is worthless because all the facts are not being considered before any conclusions are drawn.
We can disagree on principle. I am personally not opposed to constructive criticism, but there need to be some logical principles involved before such criticism can be regarded as "constructive". The simple spouting of abuse for its own sake achieves nothing, and the principle of selective screening of data (excluding arguments that are important links in the chain) is scarcely better than that.
Firstly I have been accused of jealousy (being jealous of Lindsay Lohan, American actress and recidivist criminal, to be precise)
Secondly I have been told that I must be Gay or at least a Gay sympathiser. It was also suggested that I am a Muslim sympathiser (check out the bulk of the items on this blog, you will soon be persuaded otherwise, and also remember that fundamentalist Muslims regard homosexuality as a cardinal sin, so logically (as ever) I cannot be a sympathiser both with Gays and Muslims simultaneously, right?).
Whether I should be jealous of someone who has to do Community Service (rather than jail time) in a morgue is very much open to doubt. I do not make a point of envying other people anyway, most of the time my concern is to see a rise in the economic circumstances of those who need it, want it, and are prepared to work to get it. I do not actually wish to deny the right of people to be wealthy. I will only criticise such when you have an economic system that works purely to make a few people wealthy while large numbers of people remain hamstrung in poverty with no way out (also known as the "McDonalds economy"!).
You can raise the standard of living of the people at the bottom end to a reasonable level, and see an end to unemployment while we are it, while allowing the wealthy to stay wealthy? Fine. But we are not going in that direction. Rather we are watching the impoverishment of people who were once in the middle (well lower middle actually) by sending worthwhile jobs as cheap labour elsewhere in the world, while creating more "burger flippers"! And try getting a job in IT after the age of 55!
And so to Gays. I have never once mentioned that subject upon my blog. I never discuss it on other fora either. I am an old man now, who always was heterosexual. I make a point though of not interfering with lifestyle choices for people who do not fit the same description. That is a personal choice for them to make.
This is not what I always thought. I used to be sceptical of why a man would want to have sex with another man, and I still do not really understand the desire, but I will not interfere in other people's choices (nor should any legal authority unless consent does not exist). It is not my issue. Everything said, finish, move on.
What we are seeing increasingly though in most areas of debate upon current affairs is something that I first saw raised in my first year at University. We were presented with an analysis of Voltaire's work "Candide" where the author deliberately simplified facts and excluded significant details to get a point over.
If you only present a proportion of the facts (or twist the facts so that they are not facts at all), you can always win your argument. The less detail that you have, the more erroneous your conclusions are liable to be, though. There is a basic flaw, as you learn when studying classic Aristotelian logic - namely arguing from a particular standpoint to reach a general conclusion.
There are loads of examples that can be used, politicians do this all the time - sadly. The point being though conclusions are only valid when you have taken all the facts into account, and reached a conclusion by tying them altogether. Some of the criticism aimed in my direction in the past few days is worthless because all the facts are not being considered before any conclusions are drawn.
We can disagree on principle. I am personally not opposed to constructive criticism, but there need to be some logical principles involved before such criticism can be regarded as "constructive". The simple spouting of abuse for its own sake achieves nothing, and the principle of selective screening of data (excluding arguments that are important links in the chain) is scarcely better than that.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Immigrants
It seems quite simple really - what to do with immigrants, that is.
They are all trouble-makers or idle scroungers, they want to blow us all up or steal from us or laze around and live off the tax we pay ....
You hear this occasionally. So it is right and we must kick them out, right?
OK - dreadful confession. I am an immigrant. I am a foreign national living on a permanent residence visa and without a passport from my adopted country.
Ah, but you are a white European, so it doesn't count ....
Which about sums it up really.
There is my wife though - she is Asian, from Thailand, "yellow" skin etc. Working of course ("stealing jobs" is what you normally hear when the nationalist extremists hear that - wanting it both ways is essential to the argument!).
The relationship with Thailand of course is somewhat different here - a lot of German men have married Thai wives so somehow that is OK. They are Buddhists (good, so they can bring their religion with them, unlike the Turks whose Islamic beliefs are not always trusted).
This thin dividing line though is important to an extent, but generally the relationship between most Germans outside the former East and the immigrant community is relatively settled and occasionally quite friendly. The former East, home of most of the country's extreme nationalist politicians, has special circumstances which are best discussed another day.
One significant feature about immigration in much of Europe, though, is the bias of the story and what the facts actually are.
Much of the immigration per se is old news. The era of mass immigration has not been the past 10 years. I saw one intriguing stat recently that more "ethnic Turks" went back to Turkey in 2009 than immigrated here. Most of the immigration to Germany at least in recent years, which is not over-substantial, has come from Eastern Europe - Russia principally.
I was once again watching Geert Wilders' short film "Fitna" on YouTube tonight (more on this another time). Picking one fact out from it - Mohammed Bouyeri, the radical Muslim fanatic who murdered Theo van Gogh, is presented as everything that is wrong with Islam etc. To bear in mind Bouyeri was born in 1981 - in Amsterdam! He was second generation, from a family that migrated to Europe in the 70s and 80s. In substantial numbers.
Despite radical propaganda to the contrary from extreme nationalist groups, I doubt whether anywhere in Europe now has waves of immigrants arriving. The people labelled as "immigrants" are often second and third generation. They may have adopted their parents' or grandparents' culture when it comes to religion, for example, but they are as much German or Dutch or Italian etc. as any previous nationality that their parents held.
It is not unusual to sit on a local train here and hear two young women bedecked in Muslim headscarves talking German, often with a pronounced Hessisch accent!
Not everyone has adapted. There are, for instance, 200 or so individuals on the German security authorities most wanted (potential?) terrorist list, a good number of whom were born here. To remember though, there are 3 million people of Turkish origin here, and then a number from various countries in North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia etc).
It is also not unusual, when Turkey are playing football internationals on television, for young men to sit in public places watching the game - and drinking beer! A very German habit, but hardly encouraged by the strict Islamists!
I am reasonably encouraged by developments. Political parties often make cheap capital out of the need for more integration courses and the like, but that is typical politics - they cannot solve the economy, so they need some form of distraction, so let's blame the foreigners for something!
Fortunately that is not too common an occurrence though. More encouraging was the outcry the other week over the extreme nationalist group who murdered a number of immigrants (see my previous article on this). Few people (outside the former East) want the Nazis back - there will be a full week on that subject in Hamburg next year. Now if the signs elsewhere in Europe were as positive ....
They are all trouble-makers or idle scroungers, they want to blow us all up or steal from us or laze around and live off the tax we pay ....
You hear this occasionally. So it is right and we must kick them out, right?
OK - dreadful confession. I am an immigrant. I am a foreign national living on a permanent residence visa and without a passport from my adopted country.
Ah, but you are a white European, so it doesn't count ....
Which about sums it up really.
There is my wife though - she is Asian, from Thailand, "yellow" skin etc. Working of course ("stealing jobs" is what you normally hear when the nationalist extremists hear that - wanting it both ways is essential to the argument!).
The relationship with Thailand of course is somewhat different here - a lot of German men have married Thai wives so somehow that is OK. They are Buddhists (good, so they can bring their religion with them, unlike the Turks whose Islamic beliefs are not always trusted).
This thin dividing line though is important to an extent, but generally the relationship between most Germans outside the former East and the immigrant community is relatively settled and occasionally quite friendly. The former East, home of most of the country's extreme nationalist politicians, has special circumstances which are best discussed another day.
One significant feature about immigration in much of Europe, though, is the bias of the story and what the facts actually are.
Much of the immigration per se is old news. The era of mass immigration has not been the past 10 years. I saw one intriguing stat recently that more "ethnic Turks" went back to Turkey in 2009 than immigrated here. Most of the immigration to Germany at least in recent years, which is not over-substantial, has come from Eastern Europe - Russia principally.
I was once again watching Geert Wilders' short film "Fitna" on YouTube tonight (more on this another time). Picking one fact out from it - Mohammed Bouyeri, the radical Muslim fanatic who murdered Theo van Gogh, is presented as everything that is wrong with Islam etc. To bear in mind Bouyeri was born in 1981 - in Amsterdam! He was second generation, from a family that migrated to Europe in the 70s and 80s. In substantial numbers.
Despite radical propaganda to the contrary from extreme nationalist groups, I doubt whether anywhere in Europe now has waves of immigrants arriving. The people labelled as "immigrants" are often second and third generation. They may have adopted their parents' or grandparents' culture when it comes to religion, for example, but they are as much German or Dutch or Italian etc. as any previous nationality that their parents held.
It is not unusual to sit on a local train here and hear two young women bedecked in Muslim headscarves talking German, often with a pronounced Hessisch accent!
Not everyone has adapted. There are, for instance, 200 or so individuals on the German security authorities most wanted (potential?) terrorist list, a good number of whom were born here. To remember though, there are 3 million people of Turkish origin here, and then a number from various countries in North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia etc).
It is also not unusual, when Turkey are playing football internationals on television, for young men to sit in public places watching the game - and drinking beer! A very German habit, but hardly encouraged by the strict Islamists!
I am reasonably encouraged by developments. Political parties often make cheap capital out of the need for more integration courses and the like, but that is typical politics - they cannot solve the economy, so they need some form of distraction, so let's blame the foreigners for something!
Fortunately that is not too common an occurrence though. More encouraging was the outcry the other week over the extreme nationalist group who murdered a number of immigrants (see my previous article on this). Few people (outside the former East) want the Nazis back - there will be a full week on that subject in Hamburg next year. Now if the signs elsewhere in Europe were as positive ....
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Piety
I have two types of memory of the school that I attended in England between the ages of 11 and 18 - bad and foul.
Once in a while though (due to my name and the school appearing together on some website or other), I am contacted by someone from there.
Last year I was invited to the Old Boys' dinner. I contemplated going, a chance for my wife to visit my aunt, and to meet some people who knew me nearly 50 years ago (perish the thought in several instances). The idea was abandoned when I was informed that she could not come, as it would be an all male affair. Looking back, one of the major problems with the school was just that - all boys, no girls!
The prospect of getting from Frankfurt to Humberside and back for a weekend is daunting enough. The fact that the person paying for the trip could not even attend the function that was the major reason for travelling? No, totally unacceptable. Vetoed. Next!
A year or so previously I was invited to attend an event where we would meet in the school hall and sing the school song for one last time. Apparently they were closing the building and tearing the place down. I will refrain from any cynical comment here, but let me simply say that I was not even tempted to attend. No misty eyes, just pragmatism!
The school song though is an interesting concept. Does anyone still have them, or need them? I recall one line from ours:
"But the pious man who this school began"?
This sounds like two mistakes being lauded in one short sentence! "Pious" here is meant apparently as a compliment.
OK - most Catholic nuns you would imagine to be kind, dedicated people (but check out Michael Moore's comments on the nuns who taught him!), and the Buddhist monks whom I have met since marrying my Buddhist wife are undoubtedly sincere people, and offer much that is laudable.
But the whole concept of piety requires unquestioning devotion to a religious belief. The teachings of that religion are never to be questioned, they cannot be seen as in any way mistaken, and the rules are to be followed to their ultimate limit.
If the tenets of the religion are wise, consistent and peaceful, then you can live with the consequences of the closed mind impact that it will have on the world as a whole. So at this point we acknowledge pious Buddhists with the respect that they deserve, ignore Hinduism as we know precious little about it, dismiss Jainism and the like for the same reason, and flash the number of proverbial fingers (one in Germany, two in the UK) at some of the others.
Islam in particular (though I have no interest either in defending Christianity or Judaism).
The young Nigerian man who got on to a plane going from Amsterdam to Detroit a couple of Christmas Days ago with explosives in his underwear, was described among other things as "pious".
A wonderful word for a terrorist bomber without the slightest concern for the rest of the people on that plane, some of whom must have been Muslims themselves!
For "pious" read "fanatical", "uncompromising" .... or just plain "stupid"!
We have brains to think. We have brains to analyse. We have brains that can be put to many worthwhile uses (not that intelligence seems to count for much in this world these days). Simply allowing the brain to be a sponge that absorbs a series of ancient myths and the questionable morality that accompanies them is a waste at best, and outright dangerous at worst.
There is in my mind nothing worse than unquestioning servitude to some holy book, the wisdom of whose texts is very much open to question when tested from any rational perspective.
"Pious" for me is no compliment, it is a word that I would gladly see eradicated from the English language, though given that much of the world's future may well be decided in the madrassahs of Pakistan, it is extremely unlikely to happen.
Eventually we should open up our minds and try and understand. It seems an increasingly difficult thing to ask for. But the real problems of the world that need to be resolved - poverty, unemployment, disease, overpopulation, debt, war-mongering to name but a few - are unlikely to be resolved by the "pious". In fact they are the last people that you could probably trust to resolve the issues!
Eventually we need working, practical solutions, not dedication to the hideous limitations imposed by some book of ancient myths!
Once in a while though (due to my name and the school appearing together on some website or other), I am contacted by someone from there.
Last year I was invited to the Old Boys' dinner. I contemplated going, a chance for my wife to visit my aunt, and to meet some people who knew me nearly 50 years ago (perish the thought in several instances). The idea was abandoned when I was informed that she could not come, as it would be an all male affair. Looking back, one of the major problems with the school was just that - all boys, no girls!
The prospect of getting from Frankfurt to Humberside and back for a weekend is daunting enough. The fact that the person paying for the trip could not even attend the function that was the major reason for travelling? No, totally unacceptable. Vetoed. Next!
A year or so previously I was invited to attend an event where we would meet in the school hall and sing the school song for one last time. Apparently they were closing the building and tearing the place down. I will refrain from any cynical comment here, but let me simply say that I was not even tempted to attend. No misty eyes, just pragmatism!
The school song though is an interesting concept. Does anyone still have them, or need them? I recall one line from ours:
"But the pious man who this school began"?
This sounds like two mistakes being lauded in one short sentence! "Pious" here is meant apparently as a compliment.
OK - most Catholic nuns you would imagine to be kind, dedicated people (but check out Michael Moore's comments on the nuns who taught him!), and the Buddhist monks whom I have met since marrying my Buddhist wife are undoubtedly sincere people, and offer much that is laudable.
But the whole concept of piety requires unquestioning devotion to a religious belief. The teachings of that religion are never to be questioned, they cannot be seen as in any way mistaken, and the rules are to be followed to their ultimate limit.
If the tenets of the religion are wise, consistent and peaceful, then you can live with the consequences of the closed mind impact that it will have on the world as a whole. So at this point we acknowledge pious Buddhists with the respect that they deserve, ignore Hinduism as we know precious little about it, dismiss Jainism and the like for the same reason, and flash the number of proverbial fingers (one in Germany, two in the UK) at some of the others.
Islam in particular (though I have no interest either in defending Christianity or Judaism).
The young Nigerian man who got on to a plane going from Amsterdam to Detroit a couple of Christmas Days ago with explosives in his underwear, was described among other things as "pious".
A wonderful word for a terrorist bomber without the slightest concern for the rest of the people on that plane, some of whom must have been Muslims themselves!
For "pious" read "fanatical", "uncompromising" .... or just plain "stupid"!
We have brains to think. We have brains to analyse. We have brains that can be put to many worthwhile uses (not that intelligence seems to count for much in this world these days). Simply allowing the brain to be a sponge that absorbs a series of ancient myths and the questionable morality that accompanies them is a waste at best, and outright dangerous at worst.
There is in my mind nothing worse than unquestioning servitude to some holy book, the wisdom of whose texts is very much open to question when tested from any rational perspective.
"Pious" for me is no compliment, it is a word that I would gladly see eradicated from the English language, though given that much of the world's future may well be decided in the madrassahs of Pakistan, it is extremely unlikely to happen.
Eventually we should open up our minds and try and understand. It seems an increasingly difficult thing to ask for. But the real problems of the world that need to be resolved - poverty, unemployment, disease, overpopulation, debt, war-mongering to name but a few - are unlikely to be resolved by the "pious". In fact they are the last people that you could probably trust to resolve the issues!
Eventually we need working, practical solutions, not dedication to the hideous limitations imposed by some book of ancient myths!
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Rainy Days and Mondays
I will sadden some of my readership by the following comment (Sunday, the day for confessions? Even for an atheist?).
I am not a total innocent when it comes to pornography. Since I was 15 I have had an interest in various forms of it (though notably not bondage, and being heterosexual, Gay movies have no appeal). A few years ago, I might admit it was something of a problem, these days it is an occasional interest still.
So putting that out of the way .....
People selling porn aim primarily at a market of young(ish) men between 15 (yes, I know the legal age is 18, but .....) and 35. There is a (not particularly dramatic) drop in sales to older men, even if the interest is still there.
Which brings me by a massive quantum leap of logic to Karen Carpenter. I doubt whether many men aged 35 and under have all that much knowledge as to whom Karen Carpenter was. On the day they got married they might have had the old record (maybe digitalised) "We've only just begun" played, and may not even realise that it was Karen Carpenter singing.
Her life was sadly short - she died of heart failure at the age of 33 in 1983 (yes, that long ago - so anybody who is now 35 years old would have been approximately 7 at the time! That point will become relevant later). She had battled with anorexia (ditto), had trouble with relationships that never worked out, and ...
She and her brother, Richard, made up a singing combination called "The Carpenters" - well-known to my generation, and producers of the sort of music that you liked to listen to when in a slushy and sentimental mood. I have downstairs in the cellar a "Best Of" album on vinyl that has not been played in years, and that is it. Ageing intellectual chronic depressives do not find much time to be slushy and sentimental.
The song for which they are now best known is the one quoted above "We've only just begun". This is a song of wistful hopefulness, and for sheer simplified optimism, it takes some beating. That said, two riders at this point. Firstly if you cannot be optimistic about life on the day that you get married, then will you ever be? It is the day when hope absolutely peaks. No troughs and valleys to come. Second point - a lot of people out there DO GET IT RIGHT! And congratulations to them!!!
My least favourite line in the song is, though "So much of life ahead". My own view is that there is no better age to be than in your early to mid-20s. Physically you will be at your peak, and intellectually your possibilities are as good as they ever will be. Originality fades as you get older, so plunder it while you can! Plan for the future, yes, but do not sacrifice what you have now to get there.
My preferred Carpenters song (for the melody rather than the lyrics) is "Rainy Days and Mondays". Curious in its way, as the lyrics are the reverse of my life. I am one of those maybe strange people who likes rain (as regular readers will know, I hate cold and snow!). Watch the trees and plants and grass react to rain. Nature in excelsis! And birds using pools of water for their own needs. I have no problems with rain, none whatsoever - even though when I lived in Lancashire, I had to get used to the frequency of it!
As for Mondays - I assume that the reference is to it being the day back at work after the pleasures of the weekend at home? Let me say this immediately. Tomorrow is Monday:
I WOULD LOVE TO BE GOING TO WORK IN AN OFFICE TOMORROW - I CAN THINK OF NOTHING THAT WOULD CHEER ME UP MORE THAN THAT PROSPECT - assuming, of course they were paying me enough to live within my means and they were using my talents. Cela va sans dire.
So what was all this irrelevant junk at the start of this article about pornography?
OK, back to the point. On my meandering round the Internet this week, I discovered that someone has this year come up with some lurid, very likely distasteful but hardly aggressively brazen photos of Karen Carpenter.
WHY?
Even if they exist, where is the interest? 28 years after she died? A woman who suffered from anorexia (hardly the sort of physique that would appeal to fans of that sort of thing). And for what audience - people in their 20s and 30s who hardly know the name, or the sadder version of old coots of my age, who really ought to have moved on to other things by now?
Is this tacky or IS THIS TACKY????
The cult of personality has become so important that this is even slightly interesting? And how important really?
This really saddens me, but it is so indicative of what we are supposed to think. Somehow though, I think that we should be far better than this. For all our flaws (and for mine - reread the beginning of this article)!
I am not a total innocent when it comes to pornography. Since I was 15 I have had an interest in various forms of it (though notably not bondage, and being heterosexual, Gay movies have no appeal). A few years ago, I might admit it was something of a problem, these days it is an occasional interest still.
So putting that out of the way .....
People selling porn aim primarily at a market of young(ish) men between 15 (yes, I know the legal age is 18, but .....) and 35. There is a (not particularly dramatic) drop in sales to older men, even if the interest is still there.
Which brings me by a massive quantum leap of logic to Karen Carpenter. I doubt whether many men aged 35 and under have all that much knowledge as to whom Karen Carpenter was. On the day they got married they might have had the old record (maybe digitalised) "We've only just begun" played, and may not even realise that it was Karen Carpenter singing.
Her life was sadly short - she died of heart failure at the age of 33 in 1983 (yes, that long ago - so anybody who is now 35 years old would have been approximately 7 at the time! That point will become relevant later). She had battled with anorexia (ditto), had trouble with relationships that never worked out, and ...
She and her brother, Richard, made up a singing combination called "The Carpenters" - well-known to my generation, and producers of the sort of music that you liked to listen to when in a slushy and sentimental mood. I have downstairs in the cellar a "Best Of" album on vinyl that has not been played in years, and that is it. Ageing intellectual chronic depressives do not find much time to be slushy and sentimental.
The song for which they are now best known is the one quoted above "We've only just begun". This is a song of wistful hopefulness, and for sheer simplified optimism, it takes some beating. That said, two riders at this point. Firstly if you cannot be optimistic about life on the day that you get married, then will you ever be? It is the day when hope absolutely peaks. No troughs and valleys to come. Second point - a lot of people out there DO GET IT RIGHT! And congratulations to them!!!
My least favourite line in the song is, though "So much of life ahead". My own view is that there is no better age to be than in your early to mid-20s. Physically you will be at your peak, and intellectually your possibilities are as good as they ever will be. Originality fades as you get older, so plunder it while you can! Plan for the future, yes, but do not sacrifice what you have now to get there.
My preferred Carpenters song (for the melody rather than the lyrics) is "Rainy Days and Mondays". Curious in its way, as the lyrics are the reverse of my life. I am one of those maybe strange people who likes rain (as regular readers will know, I hate cold and snow!). Watch the trees and plants and grass react to rain. Nature in excelsis! And birds using pools of water for their own needs. I have no problems with rain, none whatsoever - even though when I lived in Lancashire, I had to get used to the frequency of it!
As for Mondays - I assume that the reference is to it being the day back at work after the pleasures of the weekend at home? Let me say this immediately. Tomorrow is Monday:
I WOULD LOVE TO BE GOING TO WORK IN AN OFFICE TOMORROW - I CAN THINK OF NOTHING THAT WOULD CHEER ME UP MORE THAN THAT PROSPECT - assuming, of course they were paying me enough to live within my means and they were using my talents. Cela va sans dire.
So what was all this irrelevant junk at the start of this article about pornography?
OK, back to the point. On my meandering round the Internet this week, I discovered that someone has this year come up with some lurid, very likely distasteful but hardly aggressively brazen photos of Karen Carpenter.
WHY?
Even if they exist, where is the interest? 28 years after she died? A woman who suffered from anorexia (hardly the sort of physique that would appeal to fans of that sort of thing). And for what audience - people in their 20s and 30s who hardly know the name, or the sadder version of old coots of my age, who really ought to have moved on to other things by now?
Is this tacky or IS THIS TACKY????
The cult of personality has become so important that this is even slightly interesting? And how important really?
This really saddens me, but it is so indicative of what we are supposed to think. Somehow though, I think that we should be far better than this. For all our flaws (and for mine - reread the beginning of this article)!
Thursday, 1 December 2011
The Swedish rules on disciplining kids
I was on the local train coming home last week when I saw someone doing something which is apparently illegal.
There was this lady with two children (boys, approximately 7 and 10, but the ages are not necessarily accurate). Blonde, German (before people start berating the immigrant community), very middle-class from her accent, and obviously a concerned parent.
The two boys were pushing the proverbial envelope, the mother asked them to stop misbehaving, they didn't, she reached across and slapped them each hard across the wrist (once and twice respectively). The boys stopped misbehaving, looked rather cowed for a minute or so, then they resumed a sort of polite normalcy, getting drinks of water from bottles that she gave them, and behaving more like she expected.
Good parenting, I thought - personally. There was an incident, she resolved it, firmly and quickly and no harm done. And the message went out that there are rules to be observed, which IMHO you need in an ordered society.
All well and good. Except for the fact that by slapping the kids on the wrist she had broken the law. The Germans now have this silly rule (which the Swedes introduced the best part of a generation ago) that you are not allowed to hit children.
Under any circumstances!
So quite what she was supposed to have done? She had talked to the kids, they had not obeyed her. She had asked them to stop, they did not. So what then? When persuasion does not work?
I left teaching in England over 30 years ago for a reason (and this should shatter any reputation that I have among American readership that I am an incurable Liberal!). I believed at the time that discipline in schools was not strict enough, and the methods being used were simply ineffective. Corporal punishment was still at the time available for boys only (I opposed only the single sex nature of the punishment NB), but used far too sparingly.
Trying to talk bullies (of both sexes) out of bullying other kids? Yes, good luck for trying, but my experience with kids like that is that the only thing that they respected was being faced with greater force! It may be a sad comment but some of the unintelligent 14-year-olds with whom I had dealings liked to think that they were "tough" and that was it.
Period!
You can appeal to their better nature, you can make life more inconvenient for them and try and wear them down, but eventually the only thing that often stopped them was the knowledge that continuing down that road would be painful.
In every school yard there are several petty fascists who love running down those they consider inferior. You think that you can persuade them to behave better, appeal to their better nature etc - you name the cliché. The problem is if you do not persuade the petty fascists in the school yard that they are not going to get away with their misbehaviour, they could very well turn into serious Fascists as adults, who think that they own the world and that there are no rules out there that can stop them.
Sorry, but I think that what the lady on the train did last week was correct. Illegal or not!
Disagree? OK, I am a pragmatist and I will listen. Tell me instead something that is effective and will work. In the light of experience I will take a lot of persuading though.
There was this lady with two children (boys, approximately 7 and 10, but the ages are not necessarily accurate). Blonde, German (before people start berating the immigrant community), very middle-class from her accent, and obviously a concerned parent.
The two boys were pushing the proverbial envelope, the mother asked them to stop misbehaving, they didn't, she reached across and slapped them each hard across the wrist (once and twice respectively). The boys stopped misbehaving, looked rather cowed for a minute or so, then they resumed a sort of polite normalcy, getting drinks of water from bottles that she gave them, and behaving more like she expected.
Good parenting, I thought - personally. There was an incident, she resolved it, firmly and quickly and no harm done. And the message went out that there are rules to be observed, which IMHO you need in an ordered society.
All well and good. Except for the fact that by slapping the kids on the wrist she had broken the law. The Germans now have this silly rule (which the Swedes introduced the best part of a generation ago) that you are not allowed to hit children.
Under any circumstances!
So quite what she was supposed to have done? She had talked to the kids, they had not obeyed her. She had asked them to stop, they did not. So what then? When persuasion does not work?
I left teaching in England over 30 years ago for a reason (and this should shatter any reputation that I have among American readership that I am an incurable Liberal!). I believed at the time that discipline in schools was not strict enough, and the methods being used were simply ineffective. Corporal punishment was still at the time available for boys only (I opposed only the single sex nature of the punishment NB), but used far too sparingly.
Trying to talk bullies (of both sexes) out of bullying other kids? Yes, good luck for trying, but my experience with kids like that is that the only thing that they respected was being faced with greater force! It may be a sad comment but some of the unintelligent 14-year-olds with whom I had dealings liked to think that they were "tough" and that was it.
Period!
You can appeal to their better nature, you can make life more inconvenient for them and try and wear them down, but eventually the only thing that often stopped them was the knowledge that continuing down that road would be painful.
In every school yard there are several petty fascists who love running down those they consider inferior. You think that you can persuade them to behave better, appeal to their better nature etc - you name the cliché. The problem is if you do not persuade the petty fascists in the school yard that they are not going to get away with their misbehaviour, they could very well turn into serious Fascists as adults, who think that they own the world and that there are no rules out there that can stop them.
Sorry, but I think that what the lady on the train did last week was correct. Illegal or not!
Disagree? OK, I am a pragmatist and I will listen. Tell me instead something that is effective and will work. In the light of experience I will take a lot of persuading though.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)