A couple of months ago we got CNN International back, after a couple of years away with satellite problems. Not that happy with it these days, but anyway ....
Yesterday evening we had one of those CNNI moments. One of their usually better presenters, Hala Gorani, informed us that they were going to have an interview with a Nobel Prize winning economist who allegedly claimed that everyone who wanted a job could have one - it was possible usw. Interesting? As it is the subject that I have rattling on about for years, of course it was interesting - at least in theory.
The build-up was better than the interview. That the interviewee was Paul Krugman meant that for me it was nothing really new. He did not actually seem to claim that "everyone who wanted a job could have one", his views I have read and mainly agreed with (but not always). The problem was that the terms of reference were almost exclusively the United States.
Where Europe is concerned he seemed reasonably informed upon the crisis (his note as to why Spain is in a mess was perceptive), but offered nowt more that caution where Europe was concerned. Yes, austerity is bad usw (don't we know that already?) - but anything that sounded like a solution?
Easy to say "bad", not easy to offer anything "good", and very difficult to propose "excellent".
Which unfortunately is what we need. No carping, just action. And quick!!!! We appear at the moment to be facing ruin and nobody seems to be doing owt except, to quote the American political phrase of the moment, "kicking the can down the road"!
In 2 years time usw ..... Sorry guys, the people being driven into poverty on a daily basis do not have two years to wait.
I often wonder why the EU, or individual EU countries (particularly the likes of Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal, though you should add the UK and France and could even add Germany!) do not get a high-ranking Nobel Prize winning economist to work for them for six months to a year to help turn things around.
The politicians do not seem to have a clue. Their financial advisers seem more interested in sticking to party lines than advocating practical solutions - it needs some fresh input.
I would last night to have preferred to have heard from Joseph Stiglitz (the man who put Friedmanism in its place) rather than Paul Krugman. Bringing him over to Madrid for 6 months though might have an interest impact upon the Spanish economy, bringing him over to Brussels might help kick the EU into action.
What we do not need though are advisers from the likes of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - they have done enough damage already!
We need instead fresh thinking, fresh ideas, fresh motivation.
Before the continent as a whole descends into misery the like of which we have not seen since 1945 though, we definitely need someone who can bring about changes in thinking and action. It is not too late to act, but time is running short.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Monday, 28 January 2013
Getting sillier by the day
In the aftermath of my piece on Cameron, the EU, British insularity usw I received an email from an old friend in the UK.
Who usually agrees with my opinions.
"You've missed the point", he informed me. "It's all down to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty takes away certain rights from the British government, the Tories don't like it, threats to sovereignty usw".
I hadn't missed the point, I just did not mention it. The Lisbon Treaty is a fudge, an attempt to keep everyone happy and achieving the reverse effect. There are bits in it that nobody in any of the 27 EU countries much likes, but as Carl Bildt, the (conservative!) Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, pointed out the other day, the fact that you do not like some aspects of summat like the Lisbon Treaty does not mean that you stop talking to other people and simply threaten to leave.
What is perhaps curious is the fact that Tories embrace summat called the "market economy". The market economy works globally, is subject to certain restrictions within the borders of some countries, but overall it passes over the heads of any national politicians.
You want low unemployment? Try stopping companies shutting down operations in your country and moving lock, stock and barrel to China? Cannot do it! It is the "market economy"! No rules control it! It affects all our lives and yet what sovereignty do we have over any of it? Next to none!
Cameron and Tories worry about a few "political" clauses in the Lisbon Treaty but when it comes to the "market economy", they are strong advocates of it - sovereignty or no! The fat cats in the City of London do very well out of it. The common man / woman in the street may be poorer as a result (in fact probably is), job guarantees may not exist any more for people who never earned much anyway, but the sanctity of the "market economy" must never be challenged!
So there are limits - very significant limits - with regard to this "sovereignty" that they are trying to defend anyway! The economic aspects though are vital to the likes of myself, much more so than the "political" aspects that Cameron and his near xenophobic cronies emphasise. The predecessors of the the Lisbon Treaty (from Rome to Maastricht) allowed for the citizens of the countries signed up to move to find jobs within other member states.
This was a great advantage to people in the less prosperous parts of the UK (the places where the Tories win few parliamentary seats) who wanted to work and could find jobs in Holland or Germany for example. Stuck with the prospect of working in Amsterdam or Munich, or trying to live on 44 pounds (at the current rate of exchange app. 51 Euro) a week in an area where, partly as the result of government policies (governments may not be good at creating worthwhile jobs, but if the 1980s in the UK are anything to go by, they are very good at destroying them), the chance of finding anything worthwhile was bleak - which would you choose?
Take the UK out of the EU, exit that possibility. And yes, I know that unemployment is high across the EU at the moment - the partial collapse of the banking system across the continent (worse in some countries than other, Germany got off quite lightly, see Spain in comparison) has left its impact. This, again, is the "market economy", on a global scale, at work. Quite what European banks were doing gambling on the American property market (never mind suffering heavy losses as a result) is a very good question!
If European banks would concentrate on helping to get Europe moving rather than dabbling in shady deals outside its borders .... Perhaps that should have been written into the Lisbon Treaty! And yes, I know Mr Cameron and his chums in the City of London would not have liked that either! Deflation, massive debt piles and high unemployment for the masses, more caviar and champagne and yacht racing for the City bankers!
It was anyway a week of silliness for news coming out of the UK. The day after Mr Cameron's announcement about the referendum came the latest news on negative growth in the UK economy.
One more quarter of negative growth and there will officially be the third recession in four years. The first of these followed the Wall Street Crash Mark II in 2008, the next two have been self-induced by the Tories commitment to deflation at all costs. Go and check some economic history some time, and see what happened in the US in 1938 when FDR decided to listen to the US Treasury and thought tightening the budget was necessary again. The recovering economy went back into a slump!
In other words .....
No explanation necessary. You will vote for this bunch of clowns again at your peril though, referendum or no referendum. The last time they tried it, during the notorious Thatcher years, property speculation (tied to a massive rise in personal debt piles) got them out of it. As the 2008 crash was related to property prices falling to "more realistic" levels, that looks a non-starter, so where else do you go? Particularly as personal debt levels remain ludicrously high!
Anyway having indulged his flights of fancy on the referendum, Mr Cameron also informed the world that he does not like the idea of living in "a country called Europe". Interesting this thing about "countries" as he also cannot understand how many Scots would rather live in a country called "Scotland" rather than in the "United Kingdom".
As for his country called Europe - it is not going to happen, Lisbon Treaty or no Lisbon Treaty!
I have lived in countries called France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and now live in a country called Germany.
Ask the Dutch some time about their being merged into Germany, and do not expect a polite answer! Old rivalries die hard, and that one is not going to die down any time soon (for all the fact that the Germans feel far less grievous towards the Dutch than vice versa).
Or try the old canard that the UK Eurosceptics love so much about the EU being nothing more than a pact between France and Germany.
The French Social Democrat government recently upped the top tax rate in France to 75% (well you have to cut the deficit somehow, and nobody else has any spare money). In Germany (with its current moderate conservative government) it is 45%, and is never going to rise to 75% whoever wins the next election.
A country called Europe with different tax rates, different health systems (compare France with Romania or Greece), different education systems, different defence planning (the French have a nuclear weapon still, where is the Dutch or Belgian nuclear bomb?), different transportation planning usw .....
There will be areas of common interest - see the Lisbon Treaty for those, but do not overstate the issue. The day that Germany completely takes over the economies of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece (and even the UK while I am talking about the struggling economies of Europe) you had better watch out for flying pigs!
That Germany is influencing events in those countries (if it weren't it would be the IMF, my friends - the problems would still exist) goes without saying. We lend you the money, you fix your economies. If they did not need fixing? Fine. But as they do, the main lender has some say - that is how it works. And if Germany had turned round and said "we are not lending you the money - fix it yourself!"???? Some you don't win and the rest you lose ....
In passing, I would not say that the current German government has handled the European debt crisis all that well. Given the fact that I am not even a moderate conservative, though, that opinion should not be all that surprising.
Anyway IMHO it strikes me that Cameron and his cronies are simply using the EU as a bogeyman to blame for everything out there. It is well worth remembering that the EU was only responsible for the 2008 crash in that it was not stringent enough in blocking the reckless gambling by private banks in its midst which helped bring the world economy crashing down.
To stop that it would have needed more regulations at both a national and international level to curb the excesses. And as the EU is forever being criticised for all its regulations and "bloated bureaucracy", applying further regulations and increasing the bureaucracy further would have been an inevitable requirement.
Is that really what Cameron and the British Tories want(ed)? I somehow doubt it!
Who usually agrees with my opinions.
"You've missed the point", he informed me. "It's all down to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty takes away certain rights from the British government, the Tories don't like it, threats to sovereignty usw".
I hadn't missed the point, I just did not mention it. The Lisbon Treaty is a fudge, an attempt to keep everyone happy and achieving the reverse effect. There are bits in it that nobody in any of the 27 EU countries much likes, but as Carl Bildt, the (conservative!) Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, pointed out the other day, the fact that you do not like some aspects of summat like the Lisbon Treaty does not mean that you stop talking to other people and simply threaten to leave.
What is perhaps curious is the fact that Tories embrace summat called the "market economy". The market economy works globally, is subject to certain restrictions within the borders of some countries, but overall it passes over the heads of any national politicians.
You want low unemployment? Try stopping companies shutting down operations in your country and moving lock, stock and barrel to China? Cannot do it! It is the "market economy"! No rules control it! It affects all our lives and yet what sovereignty do we have over any of it? Next to none!
Cameron and Tories worry about a few "political" clauses in the Lisbon Treaty but when it comes to the "market economy", they are strong advocates of it - sovereignty or no! The fat cats in the City of London do very well out of it. The common man / woman in the street may be poorer as a result (in fact probably is), job guarantees may not exist any more for people who never earned much anyway, but the sanctity of the "market economy" must never be challenged!
So there are limits - very significant limits - with regard to this "sovereignty" that they are trying to defend anyway! The economic aspects though are vital to the likes of myself, much more so than the "political" aspects that Cameron and his near xenophobic cronies emphasise. The predecessors of the the Lisbon Treaty (from Rome to Maastricht) allowed for the citizens of the countries signed up to move to find jobs within other member states.
This was a great advantage to people in the less prosperous parts of the UK (the places where the Tories win few parliamentary seats) who wanted to work and could find jobs in Holland or Germany for example. Stuck with the prospect of working in Amsterdam or Munich, or trying to live on 44 pounds (at the current rate of exchange app. 51 Euro) a week in an area where, partly as the result of government policies (governments may not be good at creating worthwhile jobs, but if the 1980s in the UK are anything to go by, they are very good at destroying them), the chance of finding anything worthwhile was bleak - which would you choose?
Take the UK out of the EU, exit that possibility. And yes, I know that unemployment is high across the EU at the moment - the partial collapse of the banking system across the continent (worse in some countries than other, Germany got off quite lightly, see Spain in comparison) has left its impact. This, again, is the "market economy", on a global scale, at work. Quite what European banks were doing gambling on the American property market (never mind suffering heavy losses as a result) is a very good question!
If European banks would concentrate on helping to get Europe moving rather than dabbling in shady deals outside its borders .... Perhaps that should have been written into the Lisbon Treaty! And yes, I know Mr Cameron and his chums in the City of London would not have liked that either! Deflation, massive debt piles and high unemployment for the masses, more caviar and champagne and yacht racing for the City bankers!
It was anyway a week of silliness for news coming out of the UK. The day after Mr Cameron's announcement about the referendum came the latest news on negative growth in the UK economy.
One more quarter of negative growth and there will officially be the third recession in four years. The first of these followed the Wall Street Crash Mark II in 2008, the next two have been self-induced by the Tories commitment to deflation at all costs. Go and check some economic history some time, and see what happened in the US in 1938 when FDR decided to listen to the US Treasury and thought tightening the budget was necessary again. The recovering economy went back into a slump!
In other words .....
No explanation necessary. You will vote for this bunch of clowns again at your peril though, referendum or no referendum. The last time they tried it, during the notorious Thatcher years, property speculation (tied to a massive rise in personal debt piles) got them out of it. As the 2008 crash was related to property prices falling to "more realistic" levels, that looks a non-starter, so where else do you go? Particularly as personal debt levels remain ludicrously high!
Anyway having indulged his flights of fancy on the referendum, Mr Cameron also informed the world that he does not like the idea of living in "a country called Europe". Interesting this thing about "countries" as he also cannot understand how many Scots would rather live in a country called "Scotland" rather than in the "United Kingdom".
As for his country called Europe - it is not going to happen, Lisbon Treaty or no Lisbon Treaty!
I have lived in countries called France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and now live in a country called Germany.
Ask the Dutch some time about their being merged into Germany, and do not expect a polite answer! Old rivalries die hard, and that one is not going to die down any time soon (for all the fact that the Germans feel far less grievous towards the Dutch than vice versa).
Or try the old canard that the UK Eurosceptics love so much about the EU being nothing more than a pact between France and Germany.
The French Social Democrat government recently upped the top tax rate in France to 75% (well you have to cut the deficit somehow, and nobody else has any spare money). In Germany (with its current moderate conservative government) it is 45%, and is never going to rise to 75% whoever wins the next election.
A country called Europe with different tax rates, different health systems (compare France with Romania or Greece), different education systems, different defence planning (the French have a nuclear weapon still, where is the Dutch or Belgian nuclear bomb?), different transportation planning usw .....
There will be areas of common interest - see the Lisbon Treaty for those, but do not overstate the issue. The day that Germany completely takes over the economies of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece (and even the UK while I am talking about the struggling economies of Europe) you had better watch out for flying pigs!
That Germany is influencing events in those countries (if it weren't it would be the IMF, my friends - the problems would still exist) goes without saying. We lend you the money, you fix your economies. If they did not need fixing? Fine. But as they do, the main lender has some say - that is how it works. And if Germany had turned round and said "we are not lending you the money - fix it yourself!"???? Some you don't win and the rest you lose ....
In passing, I would not say that the current German government has handled the European debt crisis all that well. Given the fact that I am not even a moderate conservative, though, that opinion should not be all that surprising.
Anyway IMHO it strikes me that Cameron and his cronies are simply using the EU as a bogeyman to blame for everything out there. It is well worth remembering that the EU was only responsible for the 2008 crash in that it was not stringent enough in blocking the reckless gambling by private banks in its midst which helped bring the world economy crashing down.
To stop that it would have needed more regulations at both a national and international level to curb the excesses. And as the EU is forever being criticised for all its regulations and "bloated bureaucracy", applying further regulations and increasing the bureaucracy further would have been an inevitable requirement.
Is that really what Cameron and the British Tories want(ed)? I somehow doubt it!
Thursday, 24 January 2013
6 days, 2 years and dealing with British insularity
As a UK national, still for the moment anyway, I have been observing the latest nonsense from the UK government with more than the usual shake of the head, and for once my sense of humour, which normally protects me from the crass absurdities of this world, has gone AWOL.
As a UK national I am very much in a minority when it comes to the EU. I am very much in favour of the organisation, even if I would agree that it needs an overhaul. It is by no means perfect, but simply running away and burying your head in the nationalist sand? No thanks. I am also among those who think that the UK should have signed up for the Euro, but as the UK is a devaluation junkie (whenever the economy seems to have problems - devalue the currency, either directly or indirectly, and don't tell me that governments have no influence upon this!), the powers that be will not like it.
Noticeable that it finds itself in the same club as the countries in the Eurozone that always used to be devaluation junkies (Spain, Greece, Italy), who are all having serious economic issues. Interesting isn't it that the UK wants to proudly strut like the German or Dutch or even the French cockerel while behaving like the southern European chickens.
Anyone questioning this - this week the pound (I always, appropriately, write that in lower case) has fallen under the 1.20 level against the "sick" Euro (note the upper case first letter) again, and is heading down steadily towards its all-time low of 1.13 (reached just before the start of the Euro Crisis Stage II). And as the British Finance Minister recently announced that there will be no recovery before 2018! And anyone wanting a historical perspective, the pound is now worth somewhere between 14 and 16% of what it was worth against its German equivalent in 1971 (asset depreciation over 40 years seen from the perspective of a German long-term investor in the UK?).
Anyway as a small businessman (now that is a real joke but anyway - I am making a living of sorts working for myself as companies will not offer me a real job in line with my talent and ability and pay me a real salary, which should be considerably more than what I make working for myself) I shall next week be availing myself of an opportunity that the EU offers to small business people.
This ruling is called officially EC or EG (depending upon the language you use) 861/2007. It is a procedure that is offered to people who have issued invoices amounting to less than €2,000 to customers in other EU countries who have failed to pay in a reasonable period of time - a Small Claims procedure covering the entire EU.
I have been waiting for months for payments from companies in Belgium (2BTranslated) and France (Juristraduction), which have not been forthcoming. Final warnings were issued by me earlier this month and if the money has not been sent by January 30th (6 days from now), I can proceed with a claim via the court here in Frankfurt.
No lawyer is needed, a ton of relevant documentation is. How much it costs to file the claim I do not yet know - I only checked today to find out where the court is, I shall have to go there to check costs and procedures for handing in the complaint.
Very useful in its way. Quite what I would do if I were chase up an invoice for 1,200 Euro from a company in a non-EU country (Switzerland, Norway, Canada, the USA), I do not know. One more argument in favour of the EU! Apparently this ruling (actually a European Parliament ruling, not a European Commission directive) is not well known and is hardly used. Which says a lot about the EU - they are pretty lousy when it comes to publicising their good points!
Meanwhile David Cameron, the UK's excuse for a Prime Minister, came up yesterday with the interesting offer of holding a referendum on EU membership if his party wins the next election, which will not be held until 2015.
As one German politician shrewdly noted this morning, that sounds like an election ploy, more to do with UK politics than the EU. Cameron is facing an election in which his party can offer little by way of economic good news for a very long time (see the comments of his Finance Minister above), not much else that sounds positive (he can count himself fortunate that the US and Israeli elections went the way they did, so the pressure to participate in a war with Iran has diminished), and has to play to the Europhobia that has been constantly stirred up in the UK (notably by the Murdoch press and other tabloids) and the extremely insular nationalist parties who offer Utopian solutions (and irrelevant memories of the now defunct Empire) which have eventually no practical way of working in the real world.
If the issue were that significant, wouldn't a referendum in 2014 be just as feasible? As it is, it sounds like "well vote for us and I will give you a referendum. Meanwhile you can forget the economic misery and our inability to resolve it!".
And while we are having referenda, Mr Cameron, why not offer the people the opportunity to save billions and have a referendum on scrapping the extremely expensive and next to useless (in practical terms) independent nuclear weapon? There are security concerns out there? Well, it would have been really useful during the siege in Algeria last week or in helping the French in Mali, wouldn't it?
No? Did I miss summat then?
Anyway as I do not want to see my future in Germany placed at the whims of a British electorate whose judgement I have not been able to trust for over 30 years (how many people actually understand the issues involved with leaving the EU?), and the influence that the pernicious Rupert Murdoch will have on that, it is time to start refining my German accent, widening my range of vocabulary and also to start looking at the procedures for applying for German nationality.
That means 2 years to the next UK election, if I live that long. On the day that the Tories win the 2015 election with this silly bribe, I will commence the procedures to become a German national. Hopefully everything will be ready by then and we will have the money available. Of course they may well lose the election (if the economy stays where it is, that cannot be ruled out). Then it may be time to see what Labour offers as an alternative, although the case for changing nationalities is strong in itself regardless.
As a UK national I am very much in a minority when it comes to the EU. I am very much in favour of the organisation, even if I would agree that it needs an overhaul. It is by no means perfect, but simply running away and burying your head in the nationalist sand? No thanks. I am also among those who think that the UK should have signed up for the Euro, but as the UK is a devaluation junkie (whenever the economy seems to have problems - devalue the currency, either directly or indirectly, and don't tell me that governments have no influence upon this!), the powers that be will not like it.
Noticeable that it finds itself in the same club as the countries in the Eurozone that always used to be devaluation junkies (Spain, Greece, Italy), who are all having serious economic issues. Interesting isn't it that the UK wants to proudly strut like the German or Dutch or even the French cockerel while behaving like the southern European chickens.
Anyone questioning this - this week the pound (I always, appropriately, write that in lower case) has fallen under the 1.20 level against the "sick" Euro (note the upper case first letter) again, and is heading down steadily towards its all-time low of 1.13 (reached just before the start of the Euro Crisis Stage II). And as the British Finance Minister recently announced that there will be no recovery before 2018! And anyone wanting a historical perspective, the pound is now worth somewhere between 14 and 16% of what it was worth against its German equivalent in 1971 (asset depreciation over 40 years seen from the perspective of a German long-term investor in the UK?).
Anyway as a small businessman (now that is a real joke but anyway - I am making a living of sorts working for myself as companies will not offer me a real job in line with my talent and ability and pay me a real salary, which should be considerably more than what I make working for myself) I shall next week be availing myself of an opportunity that the EU offers to small business people.
This ruling is called officially EC or EG (depending upon the language you use) 861/2007. It is a procedure that is offered to people who have issued invoices amounting to less than €2,000 to customers in other EU countries who have failed to pay in a reasonable period of time - a Small Claims procedure covering the entire EU.
I have been waiting for months for payments from companies in Belgium (2BTranslated) and France (Juristraduction), which have not been forthcoming. Final warnings were issued by me earlier this month and if the money has not been sent by January 30th (6 days from now), I can proceed with a claim via the court here in Frankfurt.
No lawyer is needed, a ton of relevant documentation is. How much it costs to file the claim I do not yet know - I only checked today to find out where the court is, I shall have to go there to check costs and procedures for handing in the complaint.
Very useful in its way. Quite what I would do if I were chase up an invoice for 1,200 Euro from a company in a non-EU country (Switzerland, Norway, Canada, the USA), I do not know. One more argument in favour of the EU! Apparently this ruling (actually a European Parliament ruling, not a European Commission directive) is not well known and is hardly used. Which says a lot about the EU - they are pretty lousy when it comes to publicising their good points!
Meanwhile David Cameron, the UK's excuse for a Prime Minister, came up yesterday with the interesting offer of holding a referendum on EU membership if his party wins the next election, which will not be held until 2015.
As one German politician shrewdly noted this morning, that sounds like an election ploy, more to do with UK politics than the EU. Cameron is facing an election in which his party can offer little by way of economic good news for a very long time (see the comments of his Finance Minister above), not much else that sounds positive (he can count himself fortunate that the US and Israeli elections went the way they did, so the pressure to participate in a war with Iran has diminished), and has to play to the Europhobia that has been constantly stirred up in the UK (notably by the Murdoch press and other tabloids) and the extremely insular nationalist parties who offer Utopian solutions (and irrelevant memories of the now defunct Empire) which have eventually no practical way of working in the real world.
If the issue were that significant, wouldn't a referendum in 2014 be just as feasible? As it is, it sounds like "well vote for us and I will give you a referendum. Meanwhile you can forget the economic misery and our inability to resolve it!".
And while we are having referenda, Mr Cameron, why not offer the people the opportunity to save billions and have a referendum on scrapping the extremely expensive and next to useless (in practical terms) independent nuclear weapon? There are security concerns out there? Well, it would have been really useful during the siege in Algeria last week or in helping the French in Mali, wouldn't it?
No? Did I miss summat then?
Anyway as I do not want to see my future in Germany placed at the whims of a British electorate whose judgement I have not been able to trust for over 30 years (how many people actually understand the issues involved with leaving the EU?), and the influence that the pernicious Rupert Murdoch will have on that, it is time to start refining my German accent, widening my range of vocabulary and also to start looking at the procedures for applying for German nationality.
That means 2 years to the next UK election, if I live that long. On the day that the Tories win the 2015 election with this silly bribe, I will commence the procedures to become a German national. Hopefully everything will be ready by then and we will have the money available. Of course they may well lose the election (if the economy stays where it is, that cannot be ruled out). Then it may be time to see what Labour offers as an alternative, although the case for changing nationalities is strong in itself regardless.
Author's update 22/12/2021 - well we all know that Cameron kept his promise, that the referendum did take place, the British public - egged on by Murdoch and his nutcase cronies in the tabloid press - voted for parochialism and insularity. I did also follow through on my promise, but it was 2018 that I set the wheels in motion to become a German national, and I became a naturalised German citizen on January 2nd, 2019. Dual national actually (the German government did not insist upon me giving up my British nationality, but I use my German ID card whenever needed and when travelling invariably use my German passport). The UK one (still with the words "European Union" on it) is sitting redundantly in a cupboard drawer somewhere, waiting to expire and not be renewed.
They can try (and fail) to take me out of Europe, but they cannot remove the European from me.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
Getting into trouble abroad
Occasionally you hear of news items where one of your compatriots has ended up in court for committing a serious offence in another country.
And somehow you are supposed to sympathise with them.
In certain cases it is just about impossible to offer any sympathy at all. Over the past couple of decades there have been "British" and "German" nationals executed in the United States for murder. When you check out their history, it is very quickly apparent that they spent the vast majority of their lives in the United States, were to all intents and purposes American, and the use of the other nationality was a ploy to avoid the serious penalty that they were facing.
In most other cases where the individual was caught red-handed by the local police force, no sympathy should be forthcoming. A criminal offence is committed in a certain place, then the infraction should be considered locally before the appropriate court , sentence meted out as appropriate to the laws in situ and the individual should serve the sentence in the place appropriate to where the crime was committed.
I saw a report a few years ago where over 30 UK nationals were serving long sentences in Thailand for serious drug offences. Certain individuals in the UK were pressing for the sentences to be served in their home country.
One is predisposed to ask why exactly. Prisons in the UK are maybe softer than they are in Thailand?
EMWIV!
If you do not commit the crime you do not get punished in the first place. If you go to someone else's country fully intent upon flouting the rules and you get caught then you should expect to be punished according to the laws in place. What sympathy do you deserve?
And prisons there are tough and uncompromising places? This, my friend (?), is punishment, it is not a holiday camp. They should also offer rehabilitation programmes, but that is a separate issue. If you hadn't insulted their hospitality in the first place, you wouldn't find yourself stuck in the desperate situation in which you find yourself now! And it is not the business of your compatriots to bale you either - you have besmirched their name and the name of their country (if that is so important) by your activities, why should they support you?
For the UK nationals who are still not on board with me on this issue, remember the British paedophiles who got long sentences for their activities in the Philippines a few years ago - would you have wanted them back in the UK to serve their sentences?
These rules I personally believe apply in 99.99% of all cases (drat, there goes my liberal reputation again!).
I have allowed for 1 case in 10,000 to fall outside those guidelines.
So try this recent story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21137649
I have no problem with the woman being tried. I can understand why the need for the sentence also exists.
At the same time it is clear that the Indonesian authorities did not handle the case well. That interrogation was carried out without the aid of a translator and there was no consular access for 10 days is indicative of sloppy procedure. There is also the fact that she is subject to mental illness and was in fear with regard to members of her family.
A prison sentence should still be applied though.
What also should be involved here:
1. The British authorities should talk to the woman and identify exactly which members of her family were threatened by the gang who used her as a mule.
2. Protection should be offered to them on a 24/7 basis.
3. Once this protection is in place, she should then be asked to name names - the member(s) of the gang mentioned above.
4. The police (Interpol if it crosses borders) should be asked to hunt down the individuals concerned.
5. When caught they should be handed over to the Indonesian authorities and expect no mercy from them.
6. The assistance of the woman here involved should be taken into account with regard to the sentence that she has to serve.
Sympathy is still limited, but better and more effective use of the law, both local and international, will apply. And hopefully we will not be sacrificing the life of a small fish while the bigger fish swim free.
And somehow you are supposed to sympathise with them.
In certain cases it is just about impossible to offer any sympathy at all. Over the past couple of decades there have been "British" and "German" nationals executed in the United States for murder. When you check out their history, it is very quickly apparent that they spent the vast majority of their lives in the United States, were to all intents and purposes American, and the use of the other nationality was a ploy to avoid the serious penalty that they were facing.
In most other cases where the individual was caught red-handed by the local police force, no sympathy should be forthcoming. A criminal offence is committed in a certain place, then the infraction should be considered locally before the appropriate court , sentence meted out as appropriate to the laws in situ and the individual should serve the sentence in the place appropriate to where the crime was committed.
I saw a report a few years ago where over 30 UK nationals were serving long sentences in Thailand for serious drug offences. Certain individuals in the UK were pressing for the sentences to be served in their home country.
One is predisposed to ask why exactly. Prisons in the UK are maybe softer than they are in Thailand?
EMWIV!
If you do not commit the crime you do not get punished in the first place. If you go to someone else's country fully intent upon flouting the rules and you get caught then you should expect to be punished according to the laws in place. What sympathy do you deserve?
And prisons there are tough and uncompromising places? This, my friend (?), is punishment, it is not a holiday camp. They should also offer rehabilitation programmes, but that is a separate issue. If you hadn't insulted their hospitality in the first place, you wouldn't find yourself stuck in the desperate situation in which you find yourself now! And it is not the business of your compatriots to bale you either - you have besmirched their name and the name of their country (if that is so important) by your activities, why should they support you?
For the UK nationals who are still not on board with me on this issue, remember the British paedophiles who got long sentences for their activities in the Philippines a few years ago - would you have wanted them back in the UK to serve their sentences?
These rules I personally believe apply in 99.99% of all cases (drat, there goes my liberal reputation again!).
I have allowed for 1 case in 10,000 to fall outside those guidelines.
So try this recent story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21137649
I have no problem with the woman being tried. I can understand why the need for the sentence also exists.
At the same time it is clear that the Indonesian authorities did not handle the case well. That interrogation was carried out without the aid of a translator and there was no consular access for 10 days is indicative of sloppy procedure. There is also the fact that she is subject to mental illness and was in fear with regard to members of her family.
A prison sentence should still be applied though.
What also should be involved here:
1. The British authorities should talk to the woman and identify exactly which members of her family were threatened by the gang who used her as a mule.
2. Protection should be offered to them on a 24/7 basis.
3. Once this protection is in place, she should then be asked to name names - the member(s) of the gang mentioned above.
4. The police (Interpol if it crosses borders) should be asked to hunt down the individuals concerned.
5. When caught they should be handed over to the Indonesian authorities and expect no mercy from them.
6. The assistance of the woman here involved should be taken into account with regard to the sentence that she has to serve.
Sympathy is still limited, but better and more effective use of the law, both local and international, will apply. And hopefully we will not be sacrificing the life of a small fish while the bigger fish swim free.
Postscript (December 29th, 2021). I could write a very long item on this, but anyway.
Since this blog went to sleep we have had the case of the morons who left their home countries and went to fight for ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Many were captured and held by the Kurds. Despite the fact that what these individuals did (participating in the attempt to overthrow, illegally, a government), some people think that they should be returned to their home countries to face indictments.
The French government have taken the stand that as the crimes were committed in Iraq and Syria, they should be prosecuted there. I agree entirely! They may face the death penalty? Since when has anyone joining ISIS allegedly been afraid of facing death anyway? Martyrdom. It is part of the culture.
I don't see the difference between what these (often vicious, brutal) religious fanatics did and what European drug smugglers did in Thailand - or for that matter, Singapore! You committed a very serious crime in a foreign country, you had no right to be there in any case, so you face what the local authorities decide.
I am opposed to the death penalty? Usually, but I am also going to show no sympathy to murderous thugs who should have stayed away in the first place. They can stew in their own juice!
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
When do we begin the book burnings again?
As my regular readers will know I am a European man married to an Asian lady (from Thailand). I think that she is a very nice lady, and she (proverbially) loves me to death.
Different nationalities, different religious beliefs or lack of them (Buddhist meets atheist), different native languages (Thai and English, though between us we can add four others - Lao, German, French and Dutch), different generations and different cultures.
Love conquers all. I never look at her from a racial perspective. I see a person whom I love very much. She is my wife. She is not above criticism (neither am I) as none of us is perfect, but merely criticising her from the perspective of her skin pigmentation (and the shape of her eyes, I suppose) is in all respects unacceptable.
We also have a lot in common, university degrees, an ability to analyse thoughtfully, an intention not to get trampled upon by anyone. Which given the way the world is turning is not that easy.
And of course we have no children - maybe a source of regret for her, but older men having children is often not good for the child in the long-term and given the way the world is heading, the future for any child could be very bleak.
Today I ran into a number of rancid comments on YouTube which probably emanate from the UK and very probably from supporters of the BNP (or even a more extreme version of them)*. I will not deign to glorify them by copying their logically inaccurate propaganda on here. Their argument (hardly drawn on premises using Aristotelian logic) though runs on the lines that being opposed to racism equals being opposed to white people.
I am white (well beige, well pinkish in places), I have friends who are white. I do not hate myself, I do not hate or oppose my friends.
After an argument with the African guy who lives in the top flat of our apartment block the other day (he was behaving like a jerk accusing me of doing things that I had not done, during which time he three times threatened to kill me. No, it won't happen), I got the comment that I was being driven by a hatred of Africans. At which point my wife, an Asian (see above), got involved - three continents involved here!
An individual case. Not a stereotype.
I went through my mind and recalled the people I have known with whom I studied, met at university, worked with as colleagues or simply got to know socially who came from Africa.
People from Kenya, Zambia, Namibia, Mauritius, South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Tanzania, Djibouti, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt. Maybe more.
All good, worthwhile people!
Of course by the logic above I should not be talking to such people, because by their logic by even speaking to them I have become anti-white.
And the people that I have met from India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand (needless to say), Cambodia, Laos usw - none of them were "white" either.
So if anti-racist (as I am) = anti-white, then I have to be "racist", therefore I have been talking to a load of people that I should avoid, and ignore!
EMWIV!
The other stupid nonsense involved here is the argument that coloured immigrants are becoming the majority usw. JUST NOT TRUE! This is a fabricated argument that statistically simply does not work. There are plenty of items on the Internet to disprove this. The greater likelihood is that 10% of the population in some countries will be the highest proportion coloured immigrants should ever reach - for the rest it will be less than that. As for inter-marriage the numbers are much smaller.
Not, as in my own case, that should matter.
The sort of propaganda that these people put out would have been appreciated by the likes of Josef Goebbels (substitute whichever race for "Jews", the arguments are very similar - see the Nürnberg Laws and the definition of "mongrels"!).
And what comes next? The burning of anti-racist materials? Burning Barack Obama's books as he was the son of a black man and a white woman? Burning all musical material produced by John Lennon as he married an Asian (Japanese) woman and had a Eurasian son by her? Burning all Mariah Carey material as she had a black father and a white mother?
There are plenty of other examples.
Good, before we get the 1930s back, it is time that these individuals and their arguments are revealed for the 3 billion tons of untreated faeces that they are. "Anti-racist" is not anti-anything else apart from the cancer that it is racism! Well, I suppose, that it is anti-Scheiße and that is about as far as it goes. And if the Fascists out there do not like it, they can go and drown in their own faeces!
* Logic on this - the people who are producing these arguments cannot be identified, and their video material is blocked in Germany. German law is strict on banning the publication of Nazi propaganda, otherwise most anything goes. Therefore it logically follows that this material has Nazi sympathies, wherever they are based. The UK seems the most likely location given the English used and the names of the monikers used, but I will acknowledge that I am wrong if proved otherwise. I have though encountered enough of their type in England to recognise the arguments.
Different nationalities, different religious beliefs or lack of them (Buddhist meets atheist), different native languages (Thai and English, though between us we can add four others - Lao, German, French and Dutch), different generations and different cultures.
Love conquers all. I never look at her from a racial perspective. I see a person whom I love very much. She is my wife. She is not above criticism (neither am I) as none of us is perfect, but merely criticising her from the perspective of her skin pigmentation (and the shape of her eyes, I suppose) is in all respects unacceptable.
We also have a lot in common, university degrees, an ability to analyse thoughtfully, an intention not to get trampled upon by anyone. Which given the way the world is turning is not that easy.
And of course we have no children - maybe a source of regret for her, but older men having children is often not good for the child in the long-term and given the way the world is heading, the future for any child could be very bleak.
Today I ran into a number of rancid comments on YouTube which probably emanate from the UK and very probably from supporters of the BNP (or even a more extreme version of them)*. I will not deign to glorify them by copying their logically inaccurate propaganda on here. Their argument (hardly drawn on premises using Aristotelian logic) though runs on the lines that being opposed to racism equals being opposed to white people.
I am white (well beige, well pinkish in places), I have friends who are white. I do not hate myself, I do not hate or oppose my friends.
After an argument with the African guy who lives in the top flat of our apartment block the other day (he was behaving like a jerk accusing me of doing things that I had not done, during which time he three times threatened to kill me. No, it won't happen), I got the comment that I was being driven by a hatred of Africans. At which point my wife, an Asian (see above), got involved - three continents involved here!
An individual case. Not a stereotype.
I went through my mind and recalled the people I have known with whom I studied, met at university, worked with as colleagues or simply got to know socially who came from Africa.
People from Kenya, Zambia, Namibia, Mauritius, South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Tanzania, Djibouti, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt. Maybe more.
All good, worthwhile people!
Of course by the logic above I should not be talking to such people, because by their logic by even speaking to them I have become anti-white.
And the people that I have met from India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand (needless to say), Cambodia, Laos usw - none of them were "white" either.
So if anti-racist (as I am) = anti-white, then I have to be "racist", therefore I have been talking to a load of people that I should avoid, and ignore!
EMWIV!
The other stupid nonsense involved here is the argument that coloured immigrants are becoming the majority usw. JUST NOT TRUE! This is a fabricated argument that statistically simply does not work. There are plenty of items on the Internet to disprove this. The greater likelihood is that 10% of the population in some countries will be the highest proportion coloured immigrants should ever reach - for the rest it will be less than that. As for inter-marriage the numbers are much smaller.
Not, as in my own case, that should matter.
The sort of propaganda that these people put out would have been appreciated by the likes of Josef Goebbels (substitute whichever race for "Jews", the arguments are very similar - see the Nürnberg Laws and the definition of "mongrels"!).
And what comes next? The burning of anti-racist materials? Burning Barack Obama's books as he was the son of a black man and a white woman? Burning all musical material produced by John Lennon as he married an Asian (Japanese) woman and had a Eurasian son by her? Burning all Mariah Carey material as she had a black father and a white mother?
There are plenty of other examples.
Good, before we get the 1930s back, it is time that these individuals and their arguments are revealed for the 3 billion tons of untreated faeces that they are. "Anti-racist" is not anti-anything else apart from the cancer that it is racism! Well, I suppose, that it is anti-Scheiße and that is about as far as it goes. And if the Fascists out there do not like it, they can go and drown in their own faeces!
* Logic on this - the people who are producing these arguments cannot be identified, and their video material is blocked in Germany. German law is strict on banning the publication of Nazi propaganda, otherwise most anything goes. Therefore it logically follows that this material has Nazi sympathies, wherever they are based. The UK seems the most likely location given the English used and the names of the monikers used, but I will acknowledge that I am wrong if proved otherwise. I have though encountered enough of their type in England to recognise the arguments.
Postscript (December 29th, 2021). Nine years later the African guy in the top flat and I have become great friends and whatever caused the rift? Well we have long since buried the proverbial hatchet. Lesson for everyone?
Sunday, 20 January 2013
Random thoughts on Latin America - Part 1
Don't expect too logical a thread on this
Brazil
I have a longstanding desire to visit Rio de Janeiro, but that (along with my desire to visit Japan) will remain unfulfilled.
Not during Carnival, or during the World Cup in 2014 or the Olympics in 2016 - I hate crowds. Just at a normal time.
Brazil has one of the world's fastest growing economies, and may finally be reaching its potential. I hope at the same time that they are not sacrificing the amazing Amazon rain forest (one of the greatest of nature's miracles) to get there.
Think of Brazil, think of stereotypes. Football (North America = soccer), samba, what else?
Meanwhile if you want to upset your fundamentalist believing friends (Muslims will hate it, and I am not sure that strict Christians will be too kind towards its contents either), then try the following YouTube video. Yes, it is suggestive, but I would not suggest that it is obscene. Parents with children, I would put a 15+ rating on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mf_PTB8juc
Argentina
I would also like to visit Buenos Aires.
And I wish that the British and Argentinians would stop treating the nondescript Falkland Islands as one of the world's more important locations. I recall during the 1980s that the abominable Margaret Thatcher thought that it was more worthwhile spending millions protecting a remote outpost of a near-redundant Empire (but never underestimate the influence of the Empire Loyalists who have won the argument for power in the UK Conservative party, so looking backwards makes more sense than looking forwards) with a population of 4,000 rather than investing in industrial regeneration to meet the needs of over 10 million people in the North of England.
Eventually one good thing came out of the Falklands war - namely the vicious evil neo-Fascist junta in Argentina was booted out and democracy restored.
These days they are still a renegade state where the international community is concerned. That they defaulted on their debt and went their own way despite the expectations of the global economy shows an independent outlook.
Has it succeeded? I keep wondering whether the Greeks (and possibly, given the culturally close ties, the Spanish) might have benefited from sending emissaries to Buenos Aires to see if the approach might have worked.
Given my pro-EU attitudes, I am likely to think not, but also given my belief that the neo-liberal economics that wrecked the world economy needs dropping for something more pragmatic and less theoretical (and something that works for the mass of the population not just the very rich - capitalism for the masses, now that is an interesting concept. Maybe one day we ought to try it!) also suggests to me that the Argentinian approach needs a closer study.
Stereotypes? On YouTube and elsewhere there is a lot of interesting material on the culture of the Gauchos (not all Argentinians by any means are Gauchos - it is a very specific part of Argentinian rural society. I personally find their history and their continued existence quite fascinating).
And if Brazil has the samba, Argentina has the tango. Once described as the "world's sexiest dance" (not too sure about that - compare some of the samba videos from Brazil), it has a style and an artistry that is quite its own.
Loads of YouTube possibilities, try for one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXhQNRsH3uc
Not just Africa
I recall seeing some stats a few years ago that the number of people in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia who were living below the poverty line was over 50%. More than half the population living in poverty?
Any wonder that the likes of Chavez in Venezuela could seem appealing to the masses in those countries? Why do we always ignore poverty? Given all the screaming about "left-wing" governments (as they now have in Bolivia and Ecuador) did you ever wonder that the global economy fixes that South America was offered in the 1980s and 1990s were more part of the problem than the solution?
Are things improving in Bolivia and Ecuador now? I cannot comment. But there have to be a raising up of people from the bottom, opportunities, work ethic, and a removal of debt from the equation. Quite how you do it? Good question, but I wish the people of the Andean republics well.
The missing or the disappeared
Your daughter is in hospital giving birth. Two days later, still suffering from post-natal depression, she is taken away by security forces, placed in a torture chamber, electronic currents are passed through her body to get "confessions" from her, eventually she dies, and her body is dumped (probably in the neighbouring ocean) where it can never be found.
This happened more than once under the Pinochet regime in Chile in the 1980s. Thousands of other people simply disappeared - to be tortured and killed, among them Catholic priests who opposed the regime. Michelle Bachelet, later the democratically elected President of Chile, was also subjected to torture, though fortunately survived.
The junta in Argentina (see above) took thousands off the streets, tortured and killed them. No word of their fate was ever issued, and it has taken a massive amount of research to discover what happened to them.
Check out the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International if you want more complete details.
These acts should never be forgotten and must never be allowed to occur again (and, in the name of balance, I would also say the same about the perpetrators of such acts occurring under Communist regimes elsewhere in the world). Those involved, still alive and still at liberty should be held accountable still. There are, or should be, official legal systems to deal with those who undertake dangerous criminal actions - those that exceed what is to be expected or permitted within a democratic context. Torture though is an absolute non-starter.
Drug lords
Parts of Mexico have started to resemble feudal societies where the drug lords run the whole area, and are beyond the control of the government.
How do you fix this? Cutting demand in the user countries would help (so would legalisation, but I remain opposed to that - see the article that I previously wrote on the subject). Educating people on the use of drugs and the need for them would help cut the profits of the drug lords, which in turn would help Mexico deal with its criminal gangs.
Taking the glamour out of drug culture? OK - anyone got any imaginative solutions?
Brazil
I have a longstanding desire to visit Rio de Janeiro, but that (along with my desire to visit Japan) will remain unfulfilled.
Not during Carnival, or during the World Cup in 2014 or the Olympics in 2016 - I hate crowds. Just at a normal time.
Brazil has one of the world's fastest growing economies, and may finally be reaching its potential. I hope at the same time that they are not sacrificing the amazing Amazon rain forest (one of the greatest of nature's miracles) to get there.
Think of Brazil, think of stereotypes. Football (North America = soccer), samba, what else?
Meanwhile if you want to upset your fundamentalist believing friends (Muslims will hate it, and I am not sure that strict Christians will be too kind towards its contents either), then try the following YouTube video. Yes, it is suggestive, but I would not suggest that it is obscene. Parents with children, I would put a 15+ rating on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mf_PTB8juc
Argentina
I would also like to visit Buenos Aires.
And I wish that the British and Argentinians would stop treating the nondescript Falkland Islands as one of the world's more important locations. I recall during the 1980s that the abominable Margaret Thatcher thought that it was more worthwhile spending millions protecting a remote outpost of a near-redundant Empire (but never underestimate the influence of the Empire Loyalists who have won the argument for power in the UK Conservative party, so looking backwards makes more sense than looking forwards) with a population of 4,000 rather than investing in industrial regeneration to meet the needs of over 10 million people in the North of England.
Eventually one good thing came out of the Falklands war - namely the vicious evil neo-Fascist junta in Argentina was booted out and democracy restored.
These days they are still a renegade state where the international community is concerned. That they defaulted on their debt and went their own way despite the expectations of the global economy shows an independent outlook.
Has it succeeded? I keep wondering whether the Greeks (and possibly, given the culturally close ties, the Spanish) might have benefited from sending emissaries to Buenos Aires to see if the approach might have worked.
Given my pro-EU attitudes, I am likely to think not, but also given my belief that the neo-liberal economics that wrecked the world economy needs dropping for something more pragmatic and less theoretical (and something that works for the mass of the population not just the very rich - capitalism for the masses, now that is an interesting concept. Maybe one day we ought to try it!) also suggests to me that the Argentinian approach needs a closer study.
Stereotypes? On YouTube and elsewhere there is a lot of interesting material on the culture of the Gauchos (not all Argentinians by any means are Gauchos - it is a very specific part of Argentinian rural society. I personally find their history and their continued existence quite fascinating).
And if Brazil has the samba, Argentina has the tango. Once described as the "world's sexiest dance" (not too sure about that - compare some of the samba videos from Brazil), it has a style and an artistry that is quite its own.
Loads of YouTube possibilities, try for one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXhQNRsH3uc
Not just Africa
I recall seeing some stats a few years ago that the number of people in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia who were living below the poverty line was over 50%. More than half the population living in poverty?
Any wonder that the likes of Chavez in Venezuela could seem appealing to the masses in those countries? Why do we always ignore poverty? Given all the screaming about "left-wing" governments (as they now have in Bolivia and Ecuador) did you ever wonder that the global economy fixes that South America was offered in the 1980s and 1990s were more part of the problem than the solution?
Are things improving in Bolivia and Ecuador now? I cannot comment. But there have to be a raising up of people from the bottom, opportunities, work ethic, and a removal of debt from the equation. Quite how you do it? Good question, but I wish the people of the Andean republics well.
The missing or the disappeared
Your daughter is in hospital giving birth. Two days later, still suffering from post-natal depression, she is taken away by security forces, placed in a torture chamber, electronic currents are passed through her body to get "confessions" from her, eventually she dies, and her body is dumped (probably in the neighbouring ocean) where it can never be found.
This happened more than once under the Pinochet regime in Chile in the 1980s. Thousands of other people simply disappeared - to be tortured and killed, among them Catholic priests who opposed the regime. Michelle Bachelet, later the democratically elected President of Chile, was also subjected to torture, though fortunately survived.
The junta in Argentina (see above) took thousands off the streets, tortured and killed them. No word of their fate was ever issued, and it has taken a massive amount of research to discover what happened to them.
Check out the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International if you want more complete details.
These acts should never be forgotten and must never be allowed to occur again (and, in the name of balance, I would also say the same about the perpetrators of such acts occurring under Communist regimes elsewhere in the world). Those involved, still alive and still at liberty should be held accountable still. There are, or should be, official legal systems to deal with those who undertake dangerous criminal actions - those that exceed what is to be expected or permitted within a democratic context. Torture though is an absolute non-starter.
Drug lords
Parts of Mexico have started to resemble feudal societies where the drug lords run the whole area, and are beyond the control of the government.
How do you fix this? Cutting demand in the user countries would help (so would legalisation, but I remain opposed to that - see the article that I previously wrote on the subject). Educating people on the use of drugs and the need for them would help cut the profits of the drug lords, which in turn would help Mexico deal with its criminal gangs.
Taking the glamour out of drug culture? OK - anyone got any imaginative solutions?
Friday, 11 January 2013
What happens when you put religion and "psychic powers" together?
Try this piece of gobbledeguck from 1998. It is very amusing if you do not take it too seriously.
http://raphaelonline.com/WWIII.htm
Possibly the only disturbing thing about it is that large numbers of people will believe this nonsense ....
http://raphaelonline.com/WWIII.htm
Possibly the only disturbing thing about it is that large numbers of people will believe this nonsense ....
28/7/2025
This information is no longer available. The online account has been suspended (hardly surprisingly).
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Catching up on companies that have gone bankrupt abroad
See also my last posting.
I have spent the last couple of days chasing up Juristraduction, the Paris area based translation agency, trying to see how I can get the money that they owe me. As my bank balance is currently standing at €21 and I cannot afford to buy the medicine that I need, I need to get something sorted out extremely quickly.
As you may be aware they have not answered any of my past few emails (sent in December, not that long ago), and the last I heard from them was on December 1st.
The result of my enquiries yesterday and the day before:
http://www.juristraductioninternational-traducteurs.com/
and
http://www.jti-development.com/
I am not sure how companies in France go out of business or go bankrupt, and what the rights of creditors are. If there is someone in France who can help me in this respect, please let me know. Their offices are in Neuilly-sur-Seine and in Rue La Boétie in Paris 8e (see websites above). If someone can check if their offices are still in business by going round and checking, I would be very appreciative.
The situation cannot continue like this though. Given also that the company in Belgium 2BTranslated appears to be playing a game of chicken with me (if you want your money get a lawyer - and how much will legal fees come down to?), the financial situation is getting critical. And this is, surprise, surprise, another company blacklisted by ProZ!
And I will repeat. I have done the work, I should have been paid, I should not be in this mess. With competent, honourable and honest business people the bills should be paid on time. Unfortunately some companies would happily see you die or reduced to living on the street rather than face up to their own responsibilities!
I have spent the last couple of days chasing up Juristraduction, the Paris area based translation agency, trying to see how I can get the money that they owe me. As my bank balance is currently standing at €21 and I cannot afford to buy the medicine that I need, I need to get something sorted out extremely quickly.
As you may be aware they have not answered any of my past few emails (sent in December, not that long ago), and the last I heard from them was on December 1st.
The result of my enquiries yesterday and the day before:
- They have three telephone numbers. None of them is answered by a human voice. All calls are redirected to the operator who is also not available. Eventually you are directed to voice mail. Leave your details, there is no reply (at least to date), even if you tell them that it is urgent.
- That the 'phone and email have not been disconnected indicates that there is still some sign of life.
- The 3rd of their telephone numbers gives an answer number from a number that is different to the telephone number. Which sounds like it is being diverted.
- They apparently have already been blacklisted by one international languages agency, ProZ, as long ago as 2011. For being unreliable payers?
- Their Internet sites remain like normal Internet sites. There is no indication of anything gone amiss.
http://www.juristraductioninternational-traducteurs.com/
and
http://www.jti-development.com/
I am not sure how companies in France go out of business or go bankrupt, and what the rights of creditors are. If there is someone in France who can help me in this respect, please let me know. Their offices are in Neuilly-sur-Seine and in Rue La Boétie in Paris 8e (see websites above). If someone can check if their offices are still in business by going round and checking, I would be very appreciative.
The situation cannot continue like this though. Given also that the company in Belgium 2BTranslated appears to be playing a game of chicken with me (if you want your money get a lawyer - and how much will legal fees come down to?), the financial situation is getting critical. And this is, surprise, surprise, another company blacklisted by ProZ!
And I will repeat. I have done the work, I should have been paid, I should not be in this mess. With competent, honourable and honest business people the bills should be paid on time. Unfortunately some companies would happily see you die or reduced to living on the street rather than face up to their own responsibilities!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)