There was an incident the other day when United States Senator, Marco Rubio, was giving a speech when he suddenly realised that he had lost the last page of his script. This led to all the usual comments about him needing to use a teleprompter.
Following the story, I picked up an online video-recording of this incident. The losing of the last page did not particularly interest me. What I did notice was rather the content that preceded it.
This was a speech on foreign policy. Mr Rubio, a Republican, was informing his audience how with a new Republican administration, many countries would experience "freedom" as they had never done before - at least something on those lines.
It would be interesting to know where. Mr Rubio is a Cuban American, so of course Cuba would be top of the list. Getting rid of the Castro (Mark 2) regime for starters. Maybe they could go back to what they had before the revolution led by Castro (Mark 1)?
Not recommended actually, Castro overthrew another (but non-Communist) dictatorship led by Fulgencio Batista, who after losing a democratic election in 1952 decided that he had won anyway. The major investors in Batista's Cuba were led by Meyer Lansky, a major player in, would you believe, the Mafia. Still the Mafia are not what they were, and so a democratic election in Cuba and the people there might become as affluent as the people in most other Caribbean nations (Haiti for example).
Could this happen? Republican administrations have had the habit over the years of invading other people's countries without being asked - don't write it off, but as they haven't tried in recent years, why now?
Where else? Iran? Maybe? Iran does hold (rigged) elections already, but given the choice of more liberal candidates, everything would be different? Smile, utter the words "wishful thinking" and check out that fundamentalist Islamic parties have won the elections in Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian territories in the past few years. While the intelligentsia in Teheran might want a more liberal regime, chances are that much of the rest of the country is very conservative and likes the idea of a theocracy!
Syria? Well somebody better work out what is going on there and how the country is set up before getting involved. To bear in mind though, it is not a fundamentalist Muslim country, rather a family fiefdom (Assad & Co) and secular. They need friends (nobody in the Arab world likes them, the Israelis hate them usw), which is why they are very chummy with Iran.
North Korea? Well if anywhere does need help .... The country's major ally is the People's Republic (i.e. the chronic dicatorship of) China. The Chinese are apparently fed up with the North Koreans (the attempt to take over the world economy by fair means, or usually foul, in which the Chinese are indulging is upset by this alliance with the North Koreans). Major issue if there were an attempt to overthrow the North Korean regime is the potential that the head cases in Pyongyang would very likely drop their one nuclear weapon on one of their neighbours (unlike the Iranians, they definitely do have one) with the expected awful consequences.
And when you have successfully invaded the place, you will have to rebuild the country from the ground up. A new united Korea. All well and good, as the new united Germany project has now been under way for 23 years, is still not complete, there is still a lot of bitterness about the low standard of living and high unemployment in the former East, and it has been a massive drag on the more prosperous West for all that time ..... And East Germany was in much better shape than North Korea is, so good luck to the South Koreans with that one.
Where else?
Did I mention China? Now that is funny! What would happen to the rate of inflation? What would happen to all those stores that sell nothing but Chinese goods these days (trying to find anything else is becoming impossible)? Before messing with China, someone had better come up with an economic contingency plan. Personally I agree with those who want to see a degree of protectionism in Europe and an end to the dumping of Chinese junk (yes, shock, horror, Marine Le Pen and I agree on something!), but I digress!
And?
Probably the places where the most need for this "freedom" exist are actually on the African continent. As most people in the advanced world turn their eyes away every time the word "Africa" is mentioned, I would not expect Mr Rubio's vision of a bright new tomorrow to start happening there any time soon! Which IMHO rather sums his thinking up .....
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Finally doing what they have been told?
As long ago as 1995, Jacques Chirac informed the then Dutch government that their application of the laws on soft drugs was unacceptable (permitted they were not - simply decriminalised!).
According to Chirac sizable numbers of young French people would go up to the Netherlands, purchase marijuana, and bring it back to France.
Even evidence to the contrary (that only 2% of all the marijuana sold in France was brought in from the Netherlands) did not stop Chirac's campaign.
He also received more than a little support from his counterparts in Belgium and Germany, who were faced with a slightly different problem. If you lived in Northern Belgium or North-West Germany, it was easy enough to travel across the Dutch border and go to a coffee shop to smoke marijuana there. See how close the Dutch town of Maastricht is to the German and Belgian borders.
The Dutch faced this dilemna with equanimity, gradually limiting the amount that "foreigners" could purchase, without infringing upon what had become an interesting source of tourist revenue.
Until now.
After 17 years, and with its government facing far more important issues such as their inability to pass a budget, a rule has been sneaked through banning the sale of cannabis to foreigners in the Netherlands.
Intriguingly this does not affect Dutch nationals. Even more intriguingly a large number of Dutch citizens are up in arms about a ban that does not affect them directly! Can you imagine people in the UK being that upset about something happening there that only affected foreigners? No? Neither can I!
As someone who has smoked cannabis once (in 1972 or 1973) and had the same problem that Bill Clinton had (not knowing how to inhale, being a routine non-smoker of tobacco products), this would never have affected me, even when I lived in Amsterdam.
And as for Germany, rumour has it that obtaining marijuana in Frankfurt, Hamburg and Berlin (to name but three cities) is not all that difficult, so why so why should the afficianadoes trek up to the Netherlands anyway? Not sure how much truth there is in that rumour incidentally - the police round Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof and the charity services in the area have to deal with people who are into substances that are a lot more potent and damaging - sadly!
You are prone to wonder though - why now? Why did the Dutch finally give way on this issue? It seems an extraordinary bit of timing. If they were not prepared to do so at the time that they were in the public limelight, then why this (seemingly unsuccessful) bit of subterfuge now? Currying favour with the French? Well as both countries have government changes occurring that would only make it all the more curious.
I must admit, for once, to being totally baffled.
According to Chirac sizable numbers of young French people would go up to the Netherlands, purchase marijuana, and bring it back to France.
Even evidence to the contrary (that only 2% of all the marijuana sold in France was brought in from the Netherlands) did not stop Chirac's campaign.
He also received more than a little support from his counterparts in Belgium and Germany, who were faced with a slightly different problem. If you lived in Northern Belgium or North-West Germany, it was easy enough to travel across the Dutch border and go to a coffee shop to smoke marijuana there. See how close the Dutch town of Maastricht is to the German and Belgian borders.
The Dutch faced this dilemna with equanimity, gradually limiting the amount that "foreigners" could purchase, without infringing upon what had become an interesting source of tourist revenue.
Until now.
After 17 years, and with its government facing far more important issues such as their inability to pass a budget, a rule has been sneaked through banning the sale of cannabis to foreigners in the Netherlands.
Intriguingly this does not affect Dutch nationals. Even more intriguingly a large number of Dutch citizens are up in arms about a ban that does not affect them directly! Can you imagine people in the UK being that upset about something happening there that only affected foreigners? No? Neither can I!
As someone who has smoked cannabis once (in 1972 or 1973) and had the same problem that Bill Clinton had (not knowing how to inhale, being a routine non-smoker of tobacco products), this would never have affected me, even when I lived in Amsterdam.
And as for Germany, rumour has it that obtaining marijuana in Frankfurt, Hamburg and Berlin (to name but three cities) is not all that difficult, so why so why should the afficianadoes trek up to the Netherlands anyway? Not sure how much truth there is in that rumour incidentally - the police round Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof and the charity services in the area have to deal with people who are into substances that are a lot more potent and damaging - sadly!
You are prone to wonder though - why now? Why did the Dutch finally give way on this issue? It seems an extraordinary bit of timing. If they were not prepared to do so at the time that they were in the public limelight, then why this (seemingly unsuccessful) bit of subterfuge now? Currying favour with the French? Well as both countries have government changes occurring that would only make it all the more curious.
I must admit, for once, to being totally baffled.
Friday, 27 April 2012
Yes, really, so what are you going to do to fix things?
Waking up at 0330 is always a walking nightmare.
Switch on the computer, go to Youtube, go to the recommended list.
Nicolas Sarkozy at the end of a speech at the start of the second round of the French Presidential elections. Some noisy supporters waving the tricolore, and chanting. Quite what I did not catch.
The rest was campaign rhetoric. France needs this, France needs that usw.
Actually what he intends doing after 5 years in power with a supportive RPR government in the Assemblée Générale?
Unemployment is rife, the government debt pile is enormous, private debt is an increasingly serious problem, and like their Republican party friends and maybe allies in the US, there is an unwillingness to acknowledge that 2008 ever happened - it was just a glitch on the radar.
And the country is such a state that nearly 20% of the people voted like Anders Breivik thinks. First time round anyway.
And a further 11% wanted a sort of hardline Communism like used to come out of the Kremlin in the good old days (?). That is also a growing flavour in other European countries - see the rise of the Socialist Party in the Netherlands.
Meanwhile the big issues remain. The important questions remain unanswered. How do we end the curses of unemployment, poverty and personal debt, while making sure that government finances are based upon sound (debt-free) principles? And don't tell me that free market capitalism is the answer, that is what created the crisis in 2008 in the first place! More regulation to stop speculators running our lives is essential.
Does anyone have a clue?
François Hollande is going to inherit the mess. By default the way David Cameron inherited the mess in the UK. He may well end up looking as incompetent as David Cameron looks now (the UK remains in stagnation, deflation and the tired old policy of boosting exports through a weak currency seem to be the only ideas left).
What we need all across Europe is a positive clear direction that will lift people up, and create a sense of prosperity, common-sense and concern all at the same time. It needs to be realised in practical ways though, not in campaign speeches, chants and flag waving.
Switch on the computer, go to Youtube, go to the recommended list.
Nicolas Sarkozy at the end of a speech at the start of the second round of the French Presidential elections. Some noisy supporters waving the tricolore, and chanting. Quite what I did not catch.
The rest was campaign rhetoric. France needs this, France needs that usw.
Actually what he intends doing after 5 years in power with a supportive RPR government in the Assemblée Générale?
Unemployment is rife, the government debt pile is enormous, private debt is an increasingly serious problem, and like their Republican party friends and maybe allies in the US, there is an unwillingness to acknowledge that 2008 ever happened - it was just a glitch on the radar.
And the country is such a state that nearly 20% of the people voted like Anders Breivik thinks. First time round anyway.
And a further 11% wanted a sort of hardline Communism like used to come out of the Kremlin in the good old days (?). That is also a growing flavour in other European countries - see the rise of the Socialist Party in the Netherlands.
Meanwhile the big issues remain. The important questions remain unanswered. How do we end the curses of unemployment, poverty and personal debt, while making sure that government finances are based upon sound (debt-free) principles? And don't tell me that free market capitalism is the answer, that is what created the crisis in 2008 in the first place! More regulation to stop speculators running our lives is essential.
Does anyone have a clue?
François Hollande is going to inherit the mess. By default the way David Cameron inherited the mess in the UK. He may well end up looking as incompetent as David Cameron looks now (the UK remains in stagnation, deflation and the tired old policy of boosting exports through a weak currency seem to be the only ideas left).
What we need all across Europe is a positive clear direction that will lift people up, and create a sense of prosperity, common-sense and concern all at the same time. It needs to be realised in practical ways though, not in campaign speeches, chants and flag waving.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
It starts when you're always afraid
Back to my favourite line from the Buffalo Springfield song from 1967 ....
The chance of being killed in a road accident is manifestly higher than being killed by a terrorist bomb. By a large margin! How many people refuse to get into a car as a result? This could be the last time, some idiot might ram you, you may be badly maimed if not killed (I personally would choose the latter, given this gruesome choice).
The point is though that very very few people are afraid to get into cars with any of this in mind. It won't happen to them. Of course.
So why be afraid that some Islamic radical is going to blow you to kingdom come? It happens - sadly, atrociously, brutally - but hardly every day. It must be due to happen in Germany, we are told (the Bundeswehr being on "Muslim terrain" in Afghanistan). When, where, how? We do not know, but we do know that the small percentage of radicals here (maybe 200 to 300 out of an assessed "Muslim" population of 3 to 4 million) are observed closely by the German security authorities.
Somebody might slip through the net? Maybe.
The point is though that the percentage chance of this happening is so ridiculously low there is no point being afraid that it will. The authorities have a job to do, they are on the case, let them get on with it.
In 2001 I was doing well in my job, my bank balance was as healthy as it gets (or as it ever got), and there seemed a lot to look forward to. Even then though I had far greater concern about economic wipeout than terrorism (or being killed in a road accident for that matter - but then I always use public transport, where the percentage accident rate is much lower).
Twice since 2001 there have been economic recessions. Twice, despite my efforts to keep working, I have been thrown on the economic dung heap. I have heard politicians of every stripe (though American and UK conservatives are undoubtedly the worst) claim that you can emerge from these successfully - it's all down to you and the usual garbage.
Since 1980, the standard of living in the North of England has fallen sizably. In Germany the standard of living has decreased by some points since the fall of the Berlin Wall (and massively in the former East). Debt is everywhere and the future is bleak.
If politicians concentrated their attentions on preventing the sort of economic downturns and impoverishment of talented people that we have seen in that time, I might be able to take a bit more seriously all the gunge about terrorism and the like. As it is, it is an obvious shield. In fact nothing short of a blatant deconstruction of the real state of affairs.
If I have enough money coming in to pay the bills, not get into debt and have a couple of hundred Euro a month to spend - and if I have the dignity and integrity that goes with working, I am happy. As things stand I could trip over a bomb tomorrow and still not think that terrorism should be a greater concern than economic well-being. Or even worry myself unduly about being run over by a driver who is not paying proper and careful attention! Eventually the bills need paying, that is all that matters.
The chance of being killed in a road accident is manifestly higher than being killed by a terrorist bomb. By a large margin! How many people refuse to get into a car as a result? This could be the last time, some idiot might ram you, you may be badly maimed if not killed (I personally would choose the latter, given this gruesome choice).
The point is though that very very few people are afraid to get into cars with any of this in mind. It won't happen to them. Of course.
So why be afraid that some Islamic radical is going to blow you to kingdom come? It happens - sadly, atrociously, brutally - but hardly every day. It must be due to happen in Germany, we are told (the Bundeswehr being on "Muslim terrain" in Afghanistan). When, where, how? We do not know, but we do know that the small percentage of radicals here (maybe 200 to 300 out of an assessed "Muslim" population of 3 to 4 million) are observed closely by the German security authorities.
Somebody might slip through the net? Maybe.
The point is though that the percentage chance of this happening is so ridiculously low there is no point being afraid that it will. The authorities have a job to do, they are on the case, let them get on with it.
In 2001 I was doing well in my job, my bank balance was as healthy as it gets (or as it ever got), and there seemed a lot to look forward to. Even then though I had far greater concern about economic wipeout than terrorism (or being killed in a road accident for that matter - but then I always use public transport, where the percentage accident rate is much lower).
Twice since 2001 there have been economic recessions. Twice, despite my efforts to keep working, I have been thrown on the economic dung heap. I have heard politicians of every stripe (though American and UK conservatives are undoubtedly the worst) claim that you can emerge from these successfully - it's all down to you and the usual garbage.
Since 1980, the standard of living in the North of England has fallen sizably. In Germany the standard of living has decreased by some points since the fall of the Berlin Wall (and massively in the former East). Debt is everywhere and the future is bleak.
If politicians concentrated their attentions on preventing the sort of economic downturns and impoverishment of talented people that we have seen in that time, I might be able to take a bit more seriously all the gunge about terrorism and the like. As it is, it is an obvious shield. In fact nothing short of a blatant deconstruction of the real state of affairs.
If I have enough money coming in to pay the bills, not get into debt and have a couple of hundred Euro a month to spend - and if I have the dignity and integrity that goes with working, I am happy. As things stand I could trip over a bomb tomorrow and still not think that terrorism should be a greater concern than economic well-being. Or even worry myself unduly about being run over by a driver who is not paying proper and careful attention! Eventually the bills need paying, that is all that matters.
Monday, 23 April 2012
French Elections - Additional Comment
Every time there is a Presidential election in France, the neo-Fascist Front National gets somewhere between 13 and 18% of the vote. This time they managed a record 18.6%.
And then we have the media telling us what a shock this is.
It isn't - it is nothing if not consistent. The spirit of Pétain and Laval has been kept alive in this sort of number for years.
The other thing (and this does not only apply to France), the media are developing the habit of calling these nasty xenophobic parties "populist". It is time that they started calling them by their true colours. For "populist", read "neo-Fascist"! All they need to get rid of the "neo" is to threaten to open their own versions of Buchenwald for housing the undesirable foreign elements. At least they haven't got that far yet. Much of their rhetoric though would be an equal for any of the speeches produced by the leaders of the NSDAP in the 1930s!
And then we have the media telling us what a shock this is.
It isn't - it is nothing if not consistent. The spirit of Pétain and Laval has been kept alive in this sort of number for years.
The other thing (and this does not only apply to France), the media are developing the habit of calling these nasty xenophobic parties "populist". It is time that they started calling them by their true colours. For "populist", read "neo-Fascist"! All they need to get rid of the "neo" is to threaten to open their own versions of Buchenwald for housing the undesirable foreign elements. At least they haven't got that far yet. Much of their rhetoric though would be an equal for any of the speeches produced by the leaders of the NSDAP in the 1930s!
Sunday, 22 April 2012
French elections
French Presidential elections today. First round, 10 candidates. Run-off to follow between the first two in the voting.
Invariably it will be same as elsewhere. The PS (like the SDP in Germany, the Labour Party in the UK, the Democrats in the US etc) against the RPR (like the CDU in Germany, the Conservatives in the UK, the Republicans in the US). Negative voting, voting out the incumbent - that is the rule. Not whether the leading opponent can change things.
Unemployment is high, the economy is not booming, whoever wins will not be able to do much to improve things.
Hollande, Sarkozy? Lower unemployment, more prosperity, an end to poverty? No chance of the second and third of those, I am afraid!
You wonder why at times we expect so much from democracy in the western world. Nothing ever seems to improve. Hope seems to have flown out of the window, and 10 years down the road the likelihood is that things will be worse than ever for everyone - except the rich of course who will simply go on getting richer wharrever happens ....
Invariably it will be same as elsewhere. The PS (like the SDP in Germany, the Labour Party in the UK, the Democrats in the US etc) against the RPR (like the CDU in Germany, the Conservatives in the UK, the Republicans in the US). Negative voting, voting out the incumbent - that is the rule. Not whether the leading opponent can change things.
Unemployment is high, the economy is not booming, whoever wins will not be able to do much to improve things.
Hollande, Sarkozy? Lower unemployment, more prosperity, an end to poverty? No chance of the second and third of those, I am afraid!
You wonder why at times we expect so much from democracy in the western world. Nothing ever seems to improve. Hope seems to have flown out of the window, and 10 years down the road the likelihood is that things will be worse than ever for everyone - except the rich of course who will simply go on getting richer wharrever happens ....
Friday, 20 April 2012
Conservative commentators in North America thinking they know what is happening in Europe
and don't!
Yesterday on YouTube I ran into a video called "Mark Steyn: Islamic immigration is destroying European cities". Mr Steyn is a Canadian who lives in the USA and pushes the usual ultraconservative agenda.
He was interviewed on Danish television and the contents appear on this video. It makes assertions that are simply not supported by the facts. It is statistically inaccurate and appeals to the base instincts of the conservative base (double use of word "base" is both deliberate and appropriate).
To quote my reply on YouTube in full: "Germany? I am a white European atheist immigrant here. Population 82 million, 14 million immigrants of whom 3 million are from Muslim countries - many of whom do not practise "their religion" (and eat pork and drink beer etc). Hardly a majority, and not the threatened takeover that is implied by the use of phoney stats and rhetoric from Mr Steyn. And Frankfurt, population 500,000, has people from 170 countries of all cultural backgrounds living there. It is multicultural, not Islamic dominated".
I could have also quoted as an example my visit last Sunday to the Songkran festival in Dreieich, on the southern outskirts of Frankfurt, which my wife decided that I should attend (glad I went eventually - incidentally). The Songkran festival is an annual Thai festival. In the hall where this event took place, I have never seen so many people from Thailand in one room together since the last time that I was in Bangkok. This is also a Buddhist festival, and even if Thailand has a substantial Muslim minority, I would lay odds that all the Thai attendees last Sunday were Buddhists. And this was just one of many Songkran celebrations across Germany last weekend. I am sure that similar events elsewhere also attracted large crowds from the diaspora here.
I have also known some Muslims of both sexes in my time in Frankfurt. Hardly radical, hardly dangerous people who would celebrate Ramadan the way the Buddhist Thai community celebrates Songkran. I do not believe in either faith (though Buddhism as a philosophy free from religious dogma has much to recommend it). As an atheist I am not alone in being tolerant (and realise in multicultural Germany, some 45% approximately of the population are either atheists or agnostics). At the same time we are not into being pushed around or threatened by extremists whether Islamofascists or STANDARD EUROPEAN FASCISTS!
Mr Steyn doesn't get it, but then he wouldn't!
He quoted the Swedish city of Malmö as an example of the point that he was trying to make. A quick check on the immigrant make-up of Malmö places this logic in the category of "dubious" if not "downright inaccurate".
While Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source on earth, I will assume the statistics given on there are based on a seriously based census. Look for the usual suspects where Muslim immigration is concerned normally (Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan - not mentioned in the top 10. Turkey - well down the list). Top of the list? Iraq!
And why are there so many Iraqi immigrants in Malmö? Ask yourself what happened in 2003? Whose country was (illegally IMHO) invaded by the US and the UK - an invasion that I am sure Mr Steyn supported? And which countries were unwilling originally to accept refugees from the country that they invaded?
And which countries did respond to the humanitarian crisis which followed? I will give you two outstanding examples - Sweden and Norway!
Check down the list of immigrants in Malmö, and check against countries in Eastern Europe where economic crisis followed the collapse of Communism. Check down the list where there have been wars and refugees driven out (the countries of the Balkans are well represented in this list). There is a logical pattern to this based upon, principally, humanitarian concerns! And not on Islamisation! Check out Oslo in neighbouring Norway where there is a large Somali community - many of them refugees who fled a conflict that has been going on for 20 years!
Mr Steyn's comments either reflect a blind ignorance, a convenient reflection of his own inaccurate beliefs, or sheer mischief. What is disturbing though is that his opinions give cover to the European Fascists who are growing in number across the continent. They even give a loosely veiled excuse to the likes of Anders Breivik and the next generation of murderers who wish to push this phoney agenda - "well I was only fighting for a Christian Europe - the Muslims are a danger to us all" usw.
Mohammad Merah, the former juvenile delinquent turned Al-Qaeda "fighter", killed seven people in Toulouse recently in the name of Islam. I condemned his actions on this blog in the strongest possible terms. Anders Breivik, a reputedly Christian "crusader", killed exactly eleven times as many people (many of them non-Muslims) in Norway. His actions were at least as bad as Merah's.
All actions carried out in such fashion need to be irrefutably condemned. And we do not need North American ultraconservative commentators stirring the pot, inciting the lunatic fringe with a load of phoney statistics and inaccurate observations!
Yesterday on YouTube I ran into a video called "Mark Steyn: Islamic immigration is destroying European cities". Mr Steyn is a Canadian who lives in the USA and pushes the usual ultraconservative agenda.
He was interviewed on Danish television and the contents appear on this video. It makes assertions that are simply not supported by the facts. It is statistically inaccurate and appeals to the base instincts of the conservative base (double use of word "base" is both deliberate and appropriate).
To quote my reply on YouTube in full: "Germany? I am a white European atheist immigrant here. Population 82 million, 14 million immigrants of whom 3 million are from Muslim countries - many of whom do not practise "their religion" (and eat pork and drink beer etc). Hardly a majority, and not the threatened takeover that is implied by the use of phoney stats and rhetoric from Mr Steyn. And Frankfurt, population 500,000, has people from 170 countries of all cultural backgrounds living there. It is multicultural, not Islamic dominated".
I could have also quoted as an example my visit last Sunday to the Songkran festival in Dreieich, on the southern outskirts of Frankfurt, which my wife decided that I should attend (glad I went eventually - incidentally). The Songkran festival is an annual Thai festival. In the hall where this event took place, I have never seen so many people from Thailand in one room together since the last time that I was in Bangkok. This is also a Buddhist festival, and even if Thailand has a substantial Muslim minority, I would lay odds that all the Thai attendees last Sunday were Buddhists. And this was just one of many Songkran celebrations across Germany last weekend. I am sure that similar events elsewhere also attracted large crowds from the diaspora here.
I have also known some Muslims of both sexes in my time in Frankfurt. Hardly radical, hardly dangerous people who would celebrate Ramadan the way the Buddhist Thai community celebrates Songkran. I do not believe in either faith (though Buddhism as a philosophy free from religious dogma has much to recommend it). As an atheist I am not alone in being tolerant (and realise in multicultural Germany, some 45% approximately of the population are either atheists or agnostics). At the same time we are not into being pushed around or threatened by extremists whether Islamofascists or STANDARD EUROPEAN FASCISTS!
Mr Steyn doesn't get it, but then he wouldn't!
He quoted the Swedish city of Malmö as an example of the point that he was trying to make. A quick check on the immigrant make-up of Malmö places this logic in the category of "dubious" if not "downright inaccurate".
While Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source on earth, I will assume the statistics given on there are based on a seriously based census. Look for the usual suspects where Muslim immigration is concerned normally (Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan - not mentioned in the top 10. Turkey - well down the list). Top of the list? Iraq!
And why are there so many Iraqi immigrants in Malmö? Ask yourself what happened in 2003? Whose country was (illegally IMHO) invaded by the US and the UK - an invasion that I am sure Mr Steyn supported? And which countries were unwilling originally to accept refugees from the country that they invaded?
And which countries did respond to the humanitarian crisis which followed? I will give you two outstanding examples - Sweden and Norway!
Check down the list of immigrants in Malmö, and check against countries in Eastern Europe where economic crisis followed the collapse of Communism. Check down the list where there have been wars and refugees driven out (the countries of the Balkans are well represented in this list). There is a logical pattern to this based upon, principally, humanitarian concerns! And not on Islamisation! Check out Oslo in neighbouring Norway where there is a large Somali community - many of them refugees who fled a conflict that has been going on for 20 years!
Mr Steyn's comments either reflect a blind ignorance, a convenient reflection of his own inaccurate beliefs, or sheer mischief. What is disturbing though is that his opinions give cover to the European Fascists who are growing in number across the continent. They even give a loosely veiled excuse to the likes of Anders Breivik and the next generation of murderers who wish to push this phoney agenda - "well I was only fighting for a Christian Europe - the Muslims are a danger to us all" usw.
Mohammad Merah, the former juvenile delinquent turned Al-Qaeda "fighter", killed seven people in Toulouse recently in the name of Islam. I condemned his actions on this blog in the strongest possible terms. Anders Breivik, a reputedly Christian "crusader", killed exactly eleven times as many people (many of them non-Muslims) in Norway. His actions were at least as bad as Merah's.
All actions carried out in such fashion need to be irrefutably condemned. And we do not need North American ultraconservative commentators stirring the pot, inciting the lunatic fringe with a load of phoney statistics and inaccurate observations!
Thursday, 19 April 2012
On facing death
Short, sharp and to the point, quoting from the Hammerstein half of Rodgers and Hammerstein:
"And don't be afraid of the dark"!
"And don't be afraid of the dark"!
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
People don't or cannot change?
When I was 16, I was a committed Christian.
I was brought up to attend a Methodist church, went to Sunday school, attended the church youth club usw. I could quote huge chunks of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, particularly Saint Matthew's Gospel.
At 17 following some fairly in-depth discussions with two close friends, I became convinced that I was mistaken in my beliefs. I became an atheist. Not overnight, it took time.
In the 46 years since then, I have not always been so defined. Between 1995 and 2007, after some discussions with a person from Glasgow whom I would still describe as my closest friend (a devout Catholic), I became instead an atheistically inclined agnostic. The switch back to atheism came in 2008, before my heart attack. Scientific logic, and further study of the issues involved, if you want the reasons. Nearly dying in 2008 merely reinforced my views.
The knowledge of the science concerned has evolved as I have got older. I have a clearer command of the arguments now than I had when I was 17 for example. I am though open to persuasion on anything if the scientific logic is there. This must be positively clear though.
If my "religious" journey has been one of personal evolution, my "political" journey has been notably varied, even erratic. At the age of 16 (again), I was a supporter of the British Conservative Party. Since then, my views have evolved through a whole series of stages (including dancing on the tightrope with Marxism and very briefly with Thatcherism).
Where I am now? Sceptical, but hoping something still can be done. I have my issues - an end to poverty, an end to unemployment, an end to ALL debt, an end to war, international understanding and tolerance, protection of wildlife habitats and ensuring other (endangered) species can survive and not just in zoos. In American terms - as it says on my Twitter profile "Liberal, but not that liberal!".
I am a pragmatist, and also see no point in negative voting, negative advertising, and protesting merely for its own sake. I am still open to persuasion that things will work, but after years of false promises and sheer incompetence, I need to see the hows and the wherefores.
So people can change their views and opinions and their lifestyles. Whether they can effect areas outside of their own lives is, of course, something entirely different.
I was brought up to attend a Methodist church, went to Sunday school, attended the church youth club usw. I could quote huge chunks of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, particularly Saint Matthew's Gospel.
At 17 following some fairly in-depth discussions with two close friends, I became convinced that I was mistaken in my beliefs. I became an atheist. Not overnight, it took time.
In the 46 years since then, I have not always been so defined. Between 1995 and 2007, after some discussions with a person from Glasgow whom I would still describe as my closest friend (a devout Catholic), I became instead an atheistically inclined agnostic. The switch back to atheism came in 2008, before my heart attack. Scientific logic, and further study of the issues involved, if you want the reasons. Nearly dying in 2008 merely reinforced my views.
The knowledge of the science concerned has evolved as I have got older. I have a clearer command of the arguments now than I had when I was 17 for example. I am though open to persuasion on anything if the scientific logic is there. This must be positively clear though.
If my "religious" journey has been one of personal evolution, my "political" journey has been notably varied, even erratic. At the age of 16 (again), I was a supporter of the British Conservative Party. Since then, my views have evolved through a whole series of stages (including dancing on the tightrope with Marxism and very briefly with Thatcherism).
Where I am now? Sceptical, but hoping something still can be done. I have my issues - an end to poverty, an end to unemployment, an end to ALL debt, an end to war, international understanding and tolerance, protection of wildlife habitats and ensuring other (endangered) species can survive and not just in zoos. In American terms - as it says on my Twitter profile "Liberal, but not that liberal!".
I am a pragmatist, and also see no point in negative voting, negative advertising, and protesting merely for its own sake. I am still open to persuasion that things will work, but after years of false promises and sheer incompetence, I need to see the hows and the wherefores.
So people can change their views and opinions and their lifestyles. Whether they can effect areas outside of their own lives is, of course, something entirely different.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Marxism and religion - a quick reminder
For people out of the Anders Breivik school of thinking:
Marxists are principally atheists. Not Muslims!
The old quote from Karl Marx about "Religion is the opium of the people" holds true for Islam as much for Christianity.
Atheism denies all religious belief, not just Christianity (which is noticeably embraced in some form or another - Hitler was incidentally a Roman Catholic - by many Euro-Fascists and neo-Fascists).
Social Democrats are also not Marxists, wharrever the likes of Breivik (and Nick Griffin and the NPD usw) would have you believe.
As for myself, I am a pragmatist atheist - or politically wharrever works! Marxism doesn't, Fascism certainly doesn't, Islam (as a political force) doesn't, Social Democracy rarely does, Conservatism rarely does (and the US Republican Party version of Conservatism and Thatcherism its UK spinoff certainly do not!) .... Which is probably why the German Pirate Party (who seem to have no workable policies of any significance and simply stand for protest) attract a following, which I would not encourage!
Marxists are principally atheists. Not Muslims!
The old quote from Karl Marx about "Religion is the opium of the people" holds true for Islam as much for Christianity.
Atheism denies all religious belief, not just Christianity (which is noticeably embraced in some form or another - Hitler was incidentally a Roman Catholic - by many Euro-Fascists and neo-Fascists).
Social Democrats are also not Marxists, wharrever the likes of Breivik (and Nick Griffin and the NPD usw) would have you believe.
As for myself, I am a pragmatist atheist - or politically wharrever works! Marxism doesn't, Fascism certainly doesn't, Islam (as a political force) doesn't, Social Democracy rarely does, Conservatism rarely does (and the US Republican Party version of Conservatism and Thatcherism its UK spinoff certainly do not!) .... Which is probably why the German Pirate Party (who seem to have no workable policies of any significance and simply stand for protest) attract a following, which I would not encourage!
Still want to fight in a war?
Yesterday there was the possibility to watch on the Internet live video coverage of the Anders Breivik trial in Norway.
I think that I have already said most everything about that pernicious individual that I need to say. Almost anyway.
One thing came to mind though was one of the interchanges on YouTube between a Norwegian and a Swede the other week. Both were atheists, and both were convinced that those of their fellow citizens under the age of 60 who were not atheists would be agnostics.
As far as Breivik was concerned there is a war going on between Christianity and Islam in Europe and I assume from all the nonsense that he has issued about his reasons for the murders that he committed that he must in fact be a Christian. Of sorts.
It raises the issue though. If you are a committed atheist, life is extraordinarily precious. You have one chance to do something with it, get (or make) the best possible out of it, and realise that there is no consolation prize at the end, as religions often use as an excuse for the awful lives many people have to live.
So if you have only the one shot at this life, is there any purpose in fighting in a war, where you may lose that one life fairly early. Thanks for the sacrifice usw - you didn't have much to enjoy, but thanks to your sacrifice others may benefit.
Not that you would know or appreciate it. Any consciousness of that would disappear with your death.
However, as idealistic as it sounds, the chance of war disappearing entirely if everyone became atheists is actually quite small (as is the possibility of everyone becoming atheists!). Human beings are too flawed, and the instinctive greed and urge for power among some would not go away.
Of course if everyone submitted to reason? It may happen one day, but if you look at the issues affecting us, we are actually moving away from reasonable outcomes for the mass of humanity. Poverty, unemployment, usw - far from becoming rarer - are (since the Friedman inspired meltdown of 2008), are affecting more people, not fewer. The chance of improvement any time soon unfortunately remains slim.
I think that I have already said most everything about that pernicious individual that I need to say. Almost anyway.
One thing came to mind though was one of the interchanges on YouTube between a Norwegian and a Swede the other week. Both were atheists, and both were convinced that those of their fellow citizens under the age of 60 who were not atheists would be agnostics.
As far as Breivik was concerned there is a war going on between Christianity and Islam in Europe and I assume from all the nonsense that he has issued about his reasons for the murders that he committed that he must in fact be a Christian. Of sorts.
It raises the issue though. If you are a committed atheist, life is extraordinarily precious. You have one chance to do something with it, get (or make) the best possible out of it, and realise that there is no consolation prize at the end, as religions often use as an excuse for the awful lives many people have to live.
So if you have only the one shot at this life, is there any purpose in fighting in a war, where you may lose that one life fairly early. Thanks for the sacrifice usw - you didn't have much to enjoy, but thanks to your sacrifice others may benefit.
Not that you would know or appreciate it. Any consciousness of that would disappear with your death.
However, as idealistic as it sounds, the chance of war disappearing entirely if everyone became atheists is actually quite small (as is the possibility of everyone becoming atheists!). Human beings are too flawed, and the instinctive greed and urge for power among some would not go away.
Of course if everyone submitted to reason? It may happen one day, but if you look at the issues affecting us, we are actually moving away from reasonable outcomes for the mass of humanity. Poverty, unemployment, usw - far from becoming rarer - are (since the Friedman inspired meltdown of 2008), are affecting more people, not fewer. The chance of improvement any time soon unfortunately remains slim.
Monday, 16 April 2012
Different perspectives
Assume for a moment a parent decides to post a picture of his or her child aged, say, 6 or 8 on the Internet.
Standing totally naked.
Doing nothing else, having nothing done to them - just standing there with no clothes on.
Does that count as pornography?
The parents are naturists, they have no problem with anyone being naked, even a child.
It strikes me as an absurd argument, which shows no concern about the embarrassment that it could have for the child (I would have absolutely objected as a small child to having photos taken of me like that - but then my parents would never have wanted to anyway). The intentions though are as pure as they can get. It is a natural photo, sex is not the intention, therefore it is OK.
Excuse me while I vomit. But try arguing against it.
OK another perspective. It would not be the first time that I have seen on a billboard a picture of a clear sandy beach in the blazing sun and a small child with a bucket and spade .... Again totally naked.
You are not supposed to think "pornographic", you are supposed to think "cute". That travel companies and their advertisers (or probably that in the reverse order) come up with this nonsense ....
Excuse me while I vomit again.
Meanwhile, we have the parents who have their small daughters walking round in cutesy little skirts that - well that are meant to look "cute". The sought of thing that is somehow OK on a 5 or 6-year-old, but when the girl is ten years older (at that difficult age!), the parents would be yelling at them to "cover themselves up"! Frankly I wish, in the child's interest they would cover up their smaller children more, but maybe it is me being old-fashioned.
There is of course the slighly reverse argument where people are frightened to put school photos of their kids fully dressed on the Internet, as predators might take an interest. I think, frankly, that is taking things too far in the opposite direction. We should laud kids who have been successful. We should not be frightened to let the world know of their successes!
I understand the concern about predators though, even living in a country where (unlike the UK) the media do not seem obsessed with them. A bit of wisdom in looking after children and the way they are dressed when small would not go amiss in this direction IMHO.
Standing totally naked.
Doing nothing else, having nothing done to them - just standing there with no clothes on.
Does that count as pornography?
The parents are naturists, they have no problem with anyone being naked, even a child.
It strikes me as an absurd argument, which shows no concern about the embarrassment that it could have for the child (I would have absolutely objected as a small child to having photos taken of me like that - but then my parents would never have wanted to anyway). The intentions though are as pure as they can get. It is a natural photo, sex is not the intention, therefore it is OK.
Excuse me while I vomit. But try arguing against it.
OK another perspective. It would not be the first time that I have seen on a billboard a picture of a clear sandy beach in the blazing sun and a small child with a bucket and spade .... Again totally naked.
You are not supposed to think "pornographic", you are supposed to think "cute". That travel companies and their advertisers (or probably that in the reverse order) come up with this nonsense ....
Excuse me while I vomit again.
Meanwhile, we have the parents who have their small daughters walking round in cutesy little skirts that - well that are meant to look "cute". The sought of thing that is somehow OK on a 5 or 6-year-old, but when the girl is ten years older (at that difficult age!), the parents would be yelling at them to "cover themselves up"! Frankly I wish, in the child's interest they would cover up their smaller children more, but maybe it is me being old-fashioned.
There is of course the slighly reverse argument where people are frightened to put school photos of their kids fully dressed on the Internet, as predators might take an interest. I think, frankly, that is taking things too far in the opposite direction. We should laud kids who have been successful. We should not be frightened to let the world know of their successes!
I understand the concern about predators though, even living in a country where (unlike the UK) the media do not seem obsessed with them. A bit of wisdom in looking after children and the way they are dressed when small would not go amiss in this direction IMHO.
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Well she was asking for it. Really????
It was another of those Internet stories.
Not sure exactly where in the world, but a young woman had gone out on a very hot day, and for comfort was wearing a lightweight top, shorts and ankle socks.
Given her garb, of course she was being provocative, and of course the guy who raped her was doing only what she might have expected, or should have expected.
Really?
If a woman of whatever age chooses to dress a certain way, that is a matter of her choice. It might attract more than the passing glance from the occasional male - but it does not justify any male forcing himself upon her against her will!!!!
It is not the behaviour of the girl that is at fault. It is the man refusing to contain his criminal urges. If he wanted to enjoy some time with her (cutely expressed, huh?), then he should have talked to her and tried to persuade her. If she agreed, fine, if not, he should leave her alone!
Rape though is not merely about sex. It is about brute force and power, and control. Sometimes, sex is the least important factor - see what happens with political rape in wars.
A woman does not have to be young, pretty and skimpily dressed to be a rape victim either. There are cases in the Muslim world where women who wear all the enforced paraphernalia customary in those countries who get raped. There are also cases of women of 70 and even 80 (I can quote one case I have read about in the UK where an 80-year-old woman was raped quite recently).
What drives some people .... Well maybe I am too reasonable and law-abiding and do not understand such primeval urges. A woman of 80 though?
And of course there are also men who get raped. Homosexual rape was the fast rising crime in terms of numbers in the UK a few years ago, and it is widely practised in jails in many countries round the world.
There is and never will be any justification for it.
Some women fantasise about it though, don't they? There is one thing to remember anyone who fantasises about such things - in the fantasy the person has control. You never lose that. In reality that control is never there. Consent is never present. That should never, ever, be forgotten, and the next time that you hear of anyone being raped, whatever their age and their style of clothing, your sympathies should lie fairly and squarely with the victim of the attack.
Not sure exactly where in the world, but a young woman had gone out on a very hot day, and for comfort was wearing a lightweight top, shorts and ankle socks.
Given her garb, of course she was being provocative, and of course the guy who raped her was doing only what she might have expected, or should have expected.
Really?
If a woman of whatever age chooses to dress a certain way, that is a matter of her choice. It might attract more than the passing glance from the occasional male - but it does not justify any male forcing himself upon her against her will!!!!
It is not the behaviour of the girl that is at fault. It is the man refusing to contain his criminal urges. If he wanted to enjoy some time with her (cutely expressed, huh?), then he should have talked to her and tried to persuade her. If she agreed, fine, if not, he should leave her alone!
Rape though is not merely about sex. It is about brute force and power, and control. Sometimes, sex is the least important factor - see what happens with political rape in wars.
A woman does not have to be young, pretty and skimpily dressed to be a rape victim either. There are cases in the Muslim world where women who wear all the enforced paraphernalia customary in those countries who get raped. There are also cases of women of 70 and even 80 (I can quote one case I have read about in the UK where an 80-year-old woman was raped quite recently).
What drives some people .... Well maybe I am too reasonable and law-abiding and do not understand such primeval urges. A woman of 80 though?
And of course there are also men who get raped. Homosexual rape was the fast rising crime in terms of numbers in the UK a few years ago, and it is widely practised in jails in many countries round the world.
There is and never will be any justification for it.
Some women fantasise about it though, don't they? There is one thing to remember anyone who fantasises about such things - in the fantasy the person has control. You never lose that. In reality that control is never there. Consent is never present. That should never, ever, be forgotten, and the next time that you hear of anyone being raped, whatever their age and their style of clothing, your sympathies should lie fairly and squarely with the victim of the attack.
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
What important lesson have you learned from life???
(Probably my last "Best Response" on MyLot.com before I left.
Reproduced without permission, but as it has been slightly amended and as I am the author ...).
Lesson 1 - when you do your job really well and you get things done more quickly and more accurately than anyone else, do not expect to be rewarded for your efforts, and actually expect to be shown the door more quickly as they will run out of things for you to do.
Lesson 2 - never come up with better ideas than your boss, it only makes him look bad (doesn't apply so often to female bosses incidentally, at least in my experience - maybe because it is often difficult to come up with better ideas than a female boss).
Lesson 3 - if you believe in spending sensibly and saving for the future, don't expect to gain any respect for doing so.
Lesson 4 - always remember, the smart talking salesman who can make a dreadful product sound good will always do better than an expert technician who sticks to the facts and gets his job done properly.
Lesson 5 - always remember your spouse (wife in my case) always knows more about everything than you do.
Lesson 6 (in the "it goes without saying category") - never trust politicians to tell you the truth. Life will never improve and they will probably make things even worse.
For the record, I am quite an old man now, and all the above is based upon experience.
Reproduced without permission, but as it has been slightly amended and as I am the author ...).
Lesson 1 - when you do your job really well and you get things done more quickly and more accurately than anyone else, do not expect to be rewarded for your efforts, and actually expect to be shown the door more quickly as they will run out of things for you to do.
Lesson 2 - never come up with better ideas than your boss, it only makes him look bad (doesn't apply so often to female bosses incidentally, at least in my experience - maybe because it is often difficult to come up with better ideas than a female boss).
Lesson 3 - if you believe in spending sensibly and saving for the future, don't expect to gain any respect for doing so.
Lesson 4 - always remember, the smart talking salesman who can make a dreadful product sound good will always do better than an expert technician who sticks to the facts and gets his job done properly.
Lesson 5 - always remember your spouse (wife in my case) always knows more about everything than you do.
Lesson 6 (in the "it goes without saying category") - never trust politicians to tell you the truth. Life will never improve and they will probably make things even worse.
For the record, I am quite an old man now, and all the above is based upon experience.
Monday, 9 April 2012
72 virgins - 2 variations on stories from the afterlife
More may follow.
Anyway variation 1.
Mohammad has blown himself up in the cause of Jihad and there he is in the place that he can enjoy the company of the 72 virgins.
He suddenly starts to feel uncomfortable, though as they all appear to be giggling. He looks at himself and starts to feel like he is not a complete man (or a complete soul or wharrever they are supposed to be).
Shocked he makes his way back to the admin building and explains his plight to Allah's point soul. The official looks inside a book and nods.
"Ah well", he remarks. "You know when you blew yourself up for the cause, we had to put all the bits back together for when you came here, and there was one bit we could not find - so it looks like these virgins will stay virgins for eternity. Sorry and all that, but I am sure that the sacrifice was worth it ....".
Variation 2.
Mohammad has blown himself up for the sake of Jihad, and finds himself in the after-life. First he is driven across a river by an old man in a boat who is furious that he doesn't have the coin to pay him. Then he is accompanied past a three-headed guard dog to the place where it is all decided what they will be doing for eternity. He doesn't understand the language, and merely picks up a word that sounds like "Sisyphus".
He is taken outside, in chains, to a steep hill. Already halfway up the hill a very old soul is rolling a heavy boulder up the hill.
Mohammad is quite concerned as to where his 72 virgins have got to, especially when he has to start rolling another very heavy boulder up the steep hill. It becomes all the more frustrating that each time he just about gets to the top it falls all the way back down. He notes though that his new companion has seemingly the same problem.
This seems to go on for, well, eternity. He is a bright soul though and eventually starts to pick up the language. After seeming eons (well an eternity), he finally gets to talk to this "Sisyphus" character in a way they can just about understand each other.
Apparently they are speaking some form of ancient Greek dialect. When Sisyphus hears about "Allah" and "72 virgins" though he is very confused and simply reverts to pushing his boulder up the hill again.
Eternity seems to pass, or a large chunk of it. Finally when one day Mohammad reverts to the subject of "Allah" and the "72 virgins", Sisyphus explains to him.
There is no "Allah", but rather someone called "Zeus" who runs the whole show from up top. His brother, Hades, runs this place, called "Tartarus", and they are here for eternity pushing boulders up cliffs. And as for "72 virgins", that's for Zeus to enjoy, not anyone else - and 72 may be a rather low number thinking about it!
Anyway variation 1.
Mohammad has blown himself up in the cause of Jihad and there he is in the place that he can enjoy the company of the 72 virgins.
He suddenly starts to feel uncomfortable, though as they all appear to be giggling. He looks at himself and starts to feel like he is not a complete man (or a complete soul or wharrever they are supposed to be).
Shocked he makes his way back to the admin building and explains his plight to Allah's point soul. The official looks inside a book and nods.
"Ah well", he remarks. "You know when you blew yourself up for the cause, we had to put all the bits back together for when you came here, and there was one bit we could not find - so it looks like these virgins will stay virgins for eternity. Sorry and all that, but I am sure that the sacrifice was worth it ....".
Variation 2.
Mohammad has blown himself up for the sake of Jihad, and finds himself in the after-life. First he is driven across a river by an old man in a boat who is furious that he doesn't have the coin to pay him. Then he is accompanied past a three-headed guard dog to the place where it is all decided what they will be doing for eternity. He doesn't understand the language, and merely picks up a word that sounds like "Sisyphus".
He is taken outside, in chains, to a steep hill. Already halfway up the hill a very old soul is rolling a heavy boulder up the hill.
Mohammad is quite concerned as to where his 72 virgins have got to, especially when he has to start rolling another very heavy boulder up the steep hill. It becomes all the more frustrating that each time he just about gets to the top it falls all the way back down. He notes though that his new companion has seemingly the same problem.
This seems to go on for, well, eternity. He is a bright soul though and eventually starts to pick up the language. After seeming eons (well an eternity), he finally gets to talk to this "Sisyphus" character in a way they can just about understand each other.
Apparently they are speaking some form of ancient Greek dialect. When Sisyphus hears about "Allah" and "72 virgins" though he is very confused and simply reverts to pushing his boulder up the hill again.
Eternity seems to pass, or a large chunk of it. Finally when one day Mohammad reverts to the subject of "Allah" and the "72 virgins", Sisyphus explains to him.
There is no "Allah", but rather someone called "Zeus" who runs the whole show from up top. His brother, Hades, runs this place, called "Tartarus", and they are here for eternity pushing boulders up cliffs. And as for "72 virgins", that's for Zeus to enjoy, not anyone else - and 72 may be a rather low number thinking about it!
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Intellectual arrogance or beware hubris
OK a chapter from the more scurrilous period of my life.
Approximately 1989-1990. Place - the Netherlands (exact location I will, for discretion's sake, keep to myself).
She was blonde, very (very!) attractive, 31-32 years old and sexy as .... well you know what I am getting at. Promiscuous, highly intelligent, totally lost in a world that had no direction. I wanted to make it permanent, she found that funny. How? Where? Come on! And what would she do with her little black book and all her other boyfriends? And she smoked, heavily, and she knew that I wanted her to stop!
If she is still alive, and I would not be certain of that, she will be 54 in August this year. Women like her could never be 54, middle age simply would not suit them!
We could do two things amazingly well together. The one is probably the major reason why I remember her even now, no further details necessary (and no further analysis required, but check the word "scurrilous" at the top if you want a clue!). The other was talk and analyse ....
Like minds? Maybe.
The comment always remains with me: "you aren't handsome, but you have a great mind" .... The putdown in the first part hurts a bit still (my wife now would not agree with her on that, maybe ageing suits me - then again ....). The second bit appeals though.
It has to be remembered that it is not always useful. A late, long-time friend of mine had two Masters degrees. Another good friend in the 1980s had a doctorate in Chemistry from Cambridge at the age of 22.
When either of them had the chance to enter a polling booth and make the enormously restricted choice that you get in elections in the UK (or which load of mediocre petty nationalist Europhobes do you prefer?), they could have exactly the same impact as (and no more than) someone who had left school after eleven years and could not read and write - and you wonder how the educational system could let that happen, but anyway ....
But her comment upon this was interesting. On the "beware hubris" basis. Or "you prefer the company of intelligent people, but that in itself is a sort of snobbery".
I always have to bear this in mind, even if at times when it is enormously frustrating. When I watch anything to do with the sheer nonsense coming from the US Republican Party primaries and realise that it is the same old stupid garbage (from all of them, apart from Doctor Paul on foreign policy) that caused all the problems in the first place, that it does not work, that it will never work .... Or when a British politico opens his mouth on Europe, looks round at the deflated UK economy, takes out a coin or note from his utterly imploded currency and will never admit that 33 years of mistaken domestic policy by both major Europhobic parties might have something to do with something (and yes, I do know that they have also got problems in Greece, and Portugal and Italy and Spain).
Or then there was the day in 2003, at the time of the start of the Iraq War. I was on a train between Rüdesheim and Frankfurt. An American university professor, travelling in Europe, was trying to get some sceptical Germans to understand how it worked:
"I am tired of making apologies for Bush", he remarked, "but you have to accept that in a democracy people have the right even to elect a complete idiot to power!".
Not sure what my girlfriend in the Netherlands would have made of that, but I can still envisage that glowing smile, her blonde unruly mass of hair waving from side to side, and me trying to dodge the cigarette smoke as she exhaled. Or some amazingly wonderful intimate moments together for which words are insufficient, and anyway are best not described in detail for fairly obvious reasons, but let us say simply that the likes of Rick Santorum would never have approved (oh, did I mention that she was also a (lapsed!!!!) Roman Catholic?).
Approximately 1989-1990. Place - the Netherlands (exact location I will, for discretion's sake, keep to myself).
She was blonde, very (very!) attractive, 31-32 years old and sexy as .... well you know what I am getting at. Promiscuous, highly intelligent, totally lost in a world that had no direction. I wanted to make it permanent, she found that funny. How? Where? Come on! And what would she do with her little black book and all her other boyfriends? And she smoked, heavily, and she knew that I wanted her to stop!
If she is still alive, and I would not be certain of that, she will be 54 in August this year. Women like her could never be 54, middle age simply would not suit them!
We could do two things amazingly well together. The one is probably the major reason why I remember her even now, no further details necessary (and no further analysis required, but check the word "scurrilous" at the top if you want a clue!). The other was talk and analyse ....
Like minds? Maybe.
The comment always remains with me: "you aren't handsome, but you have a great mind" .... The putdown in the first part hurts a bit still (my wife now would not agree with her on that, maybe ageing suits me - then again ....). The second bit appeals though.
It has to be remembered that it is not always useful. A late, long-time friend of mine had two Masters degrees. Another good friend in the 1980s had a doctorate in Chemistry from Cambridge at the age of 22.
When either of them had the chance to enter a polling booth and make the enormously restricted choice that you get in elections in the UK (or which load of mediocre petty nationalist Europhobes do you prefer?), they could have exactly the same impact as (and no more than) someone who had left school after eleven years and could not read and write - and you wonder how the educational system could let that happen, but anyway ....
But her comment upon this was interesting. On the "beware hubris" basis. Or "you prefer the company of intelligent people, but that in itself is a sort of snobbery".
I always have to bear this in mind, even if at times when it is enormously frustrating. When I watch anything to do with the sheer nonsense coming from the US Republican Party primaries and realise that it is the same old stupid garbage (from all of them, apart from Doctor Paul on foreign policy) that caused all the problems in the first place, that it does not work, that it will never work .... Or when a British politico opens his mouth on Europe, looks round at the deflated UK economy, takes out a coin or note from his utterly imploded currency and will never admit that 33 years of mistaken domestic policy by both major Europhobic parties might have something to do with something (and yes, I do know that they have also got problems in Greece, and Portugal and Italy and Spain).
Or then there was the day in 2003, at the time of the start of the Iraq War. I was on a train between Rüdesheim and Frankfurt. An American university professor, travelling in Europe, was trying to get some sceptical Germans to understand how it worked:
"I am tired of making apologies for Bush", he remarked, "but you have to accept that in a democracy people have the right even to elect a complete idiot to power!".
Not sure what my girlfriend in the Netherlands would have made of that, but I can still envisage that glowing smile, her blonde unruly mass of hair waving from side to side, and me trying to dodge the cigarette smoke as she exhaled. Or some amazingly wonderful intimate moments together for which words are insufficient, and anyway are best not described in detail for fairly obvious reasons, but let us say simply that the likes of Rick Santorum would never have approved (oh, did I mention that she was also a (lapsed!!!!) Roman Catholic?).
Friday, 6 April 2012
In defence of Günter Grass
Günter Grass is an old man who has lived through years of turbulence and triumph, anger, joy, bitterness and euphoria.
As a young man (to the age of 18 at most - do the maths, and then ask yourself what happened to people who didn't do what they were told in Hitler's Reich - the Scholl siblings, Cato Bontjes van Beek usw), by his admission, he was a member of the SS. He has though renounced for most of his life Nazi ideology, and taken a strong stand on "doing the right thing". He is a known supporter of Germany's moderate Social Democrat party, hardly the sort of organisation that is going to rebuild Buchenwald.
Occasionally in his intelligent if irascible fashion though, he will make an outspoken comment that rocks the proverbial boat.
Like when he comments that Israel is a danger to world peace. Back, loudly, comes from the current regime in Tel-Aviv that it is Iran not Israel usw (see also later), that Grass is still a supporter of the SS (nonsense, but anyway), that he is an anti-semite (say anything implying that the state of Israel may just be a teensy-weensy bit wrong on anything, and you face that ludicrous accusation) ....
He has slightly amended his comment to stating that the current administration in Tel-Aviv is a threat to world peace. Slightly more diplomatic, but is there an Israeli alternative government with a different agenda?
So analyse for a moment the situation:
1. Does, or does not Israel want a war with (or more likely an invasion of, or at least aerial bombardment of parts of) Iran? If no, then it is not a threat to world peace.
2. Which of the following countries has currently, for certain, nuclear warhead capability? Israel or Iran? Or both? If only Iran, then Israel is not a threat to world peace?
3. Which of the following countries in the past 50 years has invaded neighbouring countries, occupied the land of the people living there, built houses on the land there, moved its own people to live there, and then killed anyone who tried to get it back? Israel or Iran? If Israel, then it is a threat to world peace.
For the record - any anyone who has read enough of this blog will know perfectly well what I think of Islam (a barbarous, pre-medieval belief founded upon superstition and fear) and the state of Iran (a state run by a load of theocratic Shia Islamic thugs). One thing that you cannot say about Iran though is that they have in my lifetime ever invaded anyone else's country.
And perhaps the major theocratic preacher in the country, Ayatollah Khamenei, should be heard when he says that it is wrong for Muslims to kill fellow Muslims (as will undoubtedly happen if a nuclear missile is launched at Israel).
Not to be trusted? Neither IMHO are the Israelis. I will walk along the tightrope between them, point my finger at them both, and tell them that they are both wrong and they are BOTH a threat to world peace!
And that Günter Grass is without question right on this issue, and deserves to be heard!
As a young man (to the age of 18 at most - do the maths, and then ask yourself what happened to people who didn't do what they were told in Hitler's Reich - the Scholl siblings, Cato Bontjes van Beek usw), by his admission, he was a member of the SS. He has though renounced for most of his life Nazi ideology, and taken a strong stand on "doing the right thing". He is a known supporter of Germany's moderate Social Democrat party, hardly the sort of organisation that is going to rebuild Buchenwald.
Occasionally in his intelligent if irascible fashion though, he will make an outspoken comment that rocks the proverbial boat.
Like when he comments that Israel is a danger to world peace. Back, loudly, comes from the current regime in Tel-Aviv that it is Iran not Israel usw (see also later), that Grass is still a supporter of the SS (nonsense, but anyway), that he is an anti-semite (say anything implying that the state of Israel may just be a teensy-weensy bit wrong on anything, and you face that ludicrous accusation) ....
He has slightly amended his comment to stating that the current administration in Tel-Aviv is a threat to world peace. Slightly more diplomatic, but is there an Israeli alternative government with a different agenda?
So analyse for a moment the situation:
1. Does, or does not Israel want a war with (or more likely an invasion of, or at least aerial bombardment of parts of) Iran? If no, then it is not a threat to world peace.
2. Which of the following countries has currently, for certain, nuclear warhead capability? Israel or Iran? Or both? If only Iran, then Israel is not a threat to world peace?
3. Which of the following countries in the past 50 years has invaded neighbouring countries, occupied the land of the people living there, built houses on the land there, moved its own people to live there, and then killed anyone who tried to get it back? Israel or Iran? If Israel, then it is a threat to world peace.
For the record - any anyone who has read enough of this blog will know perfectly well what I think of Islam (a barbarous, pre-medieval belief founded upon superstition and fear) and the state of Iran (a state run by a load of theocratic Shia Islamic thugs). One thing that you cannot say about Iran though is that they have in my lifetime ever invaded anyone else's country.
And perhaps the major theocratic preacher in the country, Ayatollah Khamenei, should be heard when he says that it is wrong for Muslims to kill fellow Muslims (as will undoubtedly happen if a nuclear missile is launched at Israel).
Not to be trusted? Neither IMHO are the Israelis. I will walk along the tightrope between them, point my finger at them both, and tell them that they are both wrong and they are BOTH a threat to world peace!
And that Günter Grass is without question right on this issue, and deserves to be heard!
And the EPL is still the strongest league in Europe?
A comment on football (soccer for any North American readers).
Even now I keep running into comments that the English Premier League is still the strongest league in Europe. Even begrudgingly accepted that the two Spanish giants, Real Madrid and Barcelona, may be stronger than any team in England, there is always the interesting comment about depth.
Anyone want to check the semi-finals of both European competitions this year? Two out of the last four in the Champions League (Real and Barça, see above) are from Spain. Meanwhile three out the last four in the Europa League (Valencia, Athletic Bilbao and Atletico Madrid) are all also members of La Liga.
Yes I know there are the traditional questions of the Basque country and Catalonia, but they are all Spanish League clubs.
And realise in passing that Spain's national team is the holder of both the World Cup and the European Championship.
More than a few reasons then for people in Spain, who are suffering under a massively deflated debt-ridden economy and the massive unemployment attached to it, to feel more than a little bit proud at the moment.
Even now I keep running into comments that the English Premier League is still the strongest league in Europe. Even begrudgingly accepted that the two Spanish giants, Real Madrid and Barcelona, may be stronger than any team in England, there is always the interesting comment about depth.
Anyone want to check the semi-finals of both European competitions this year? Two out of the last four in the Champions League (Real and Barça, see above) are from Spain. Meanwhile three out the last four in the Europa League (Valencia, Athletic Bilbao and Atletico Madrid) are all also members of La Liga.
Yes I know there are the traditional questions of the Basque country and Catalonia, but they are all Spanish League clubs.
And realise in passing that Spain's national team is the holder of both the World Cup and the European Championship.
More than a few reasons then for people in Spain, who are suffering under a massively deflated debt-ridden economy and the massive unemployment attached to it, to feel more than a little bit proud at the moment.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Real action or idiotic fantasy?
I have lived in Germany for eleven years, and in Frankfurt for the last seven to eight.
I have never met anyone who owns a gun, nor heard of anyone owning one.
I have never encountered a situation where a stranger was walking round threatening anyone with one. When a story involving such appears in the news, it is extremely shocking.
Given the laws on gun control here that should not be a surprise. Gun ownership is not encouraged.
Switch on television any evening (not a favourite activity of mine), you would never believe it, though. My wife is fond of junk TV, and people wandering round waving guns, threatening people with guns, and generally just possessing them seems commonplace in these awful series and films.
Of course a lot of them are nothing more than imported American trash (dubbed in German). But not always.
Is this really entertainment? Escapism? A very negative type of escapism if that is the case!
And why anyone wants to watch junk like this escapes me as well!
I have never met anyone who owns a gun, nor heard of anyone owning one.
I have never encountered a situation where a stranger was walking round threatening anyone with one. When a story involving such appears in the news, it is extremely shocking.
Given the laws on gun control here that should not be a surprise. Gun ownership is not encouraged.
Switch on television any evening (not a favourite activity of mine), you would never believe it, though. My wife is fond of junk TV, and people wandering round waving guns, threatening people with guns, and generally just possessing them seems commonplace in these awful series and films.
Of course a lot of them are nothing more than imported American trash (dubbed in German). But not always.
Is this really entertainment? Escapism? A very negative type of escapism if that is the case!
And why anyone wants to watch junk like this escapes me as well!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)