The Syrian civil war.
So on the one hand you have the Assad dictatorship.
Backed by Shia Muslim Iran, with the presence now of fighters from the notorious Lebanese militant Shia movement, Hezbollah. And supplied with weapons once again by Russia.
And on the other side you have a whole series of opposing groups. Who agree on only one thing - that Assad must go. Strongly, but not completely represented by the Sunni Muslims in Syria - of all stripes. Among them the Al-Nusra front, a group associated with Al-Qaeda.
There are now chemical weapons being used - by both sides remains a possibility.
Sounds like the sort of thing that the United Nations was set up originally to stop, but somewhere over its 65 year history, the UN lost sight of its mandate, and the chance of it doing owt effective falls into two categories - nowt and less than nowt!
You would also think "the West" might have the gumption to either try and get the fighting to stop, or at least to avoid getting involved.
Nope. The US is increasingly looking likely to send weapons to the opposition before long (no doubt the "thank you" note from Al-Qaeda has already been written - remember Afghanistan and the Afghan Arabs?). Certain members of the EU tried the same trick last week. That it failed to reach a consensus made the EU look as chaotic as ever.
Probably as well it didn't reach a consensus though.
Staying out of the whole unpleasant business may not look a satisfactory solution, but taking sides with the two sides involved? Can owt worthwhile come out of supporting either side? What we need is the end of the hostilities. An organisation, a country, a negotiator or series of negotiators .....
Not much chance of that. There is very much a World War One feel to the whole situation though. It is nasty now, it will probably stay nasty for a long time yet. And don't expect the regime in power when it comes to end, whenever that may be, to be all that friendly, or stable, either.
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Monday, 27 May 2013
Conundrum
If I am right and everyone else is wrong, is my being right of any use or any value?
Intellectual honesty is in my favour, but practically it is of little use.
Intellectual honesty is in my favour, but practically it is of little use.
Saturday, 25 May 2013
Democratic choices and Islamic dictatorial imposition
I wonder how many of my American readers know the name Adam Gadahn.
The really politically savvy might. The American general public though?
He has a bounty upon his head. Find him, bring him to justice - dead or alive as in the Old West - he is worth quite a bit of money, the reward is substantial.
He is wanted - for treason!
It doesn't happen very often that an American commits an act (or series of acts) that lead(s) to a charge of treason. You might imagine that his photo would be everywhere and that his name would be on everyone's lips.
Not that you will find him in the US any time soon. He took off for Pakistan years ago and is now allegedly somewhere in that country. He appears on Al-Qaeda videos once in a while spewing out the usual fundamentalist gibberish. In one of these he renounced his American nationality while ripping up his American passport. Islamic soap opera stuff.
The videos are often in English, occasionally in Arabic. English might have its uses in Pakistan. Arabic is indicative of the company he keeps (the exiled Arab fundamentalist leaders are his best mates). Whether he speaks Urdu, which will enable him to speak to most Pakistanis, I am uncertain, though I would imagine so. His wife comes from Afghanistan, so maybe he speaks Pashto as well.
An interesting polyglot that would make him, for all his ridiculous political and religious opinions.
He is though an interesting product of democratic culture, for all his attempts to deny it and decry it. His grandfather was Jewish (and he often comments upon this while spewing out the usual hatred of Jews on the videos). The real family name was Pearlman. His parents converted to Christianity and adopted the name Gadahn. Their interesting trade or profession has an "only in California" feel to it - they are goat herders!
As the next generation young Adam converted to Islam.
All well and not so good. Democratic principles - you have the choice, you can do it, it is not illegal. He could have chosen to become a Buddhist, a follower or Greek or Norse mythology. He could have chosen the traditional beliefs of native Americans.
And if he had any sense he might have become an atheist and write all beliefs off as occasionally interesting but generally silly, outmoded and downright illogical. Or an agnostic at the very least.
He chose Islam. All well and not so good.
So think for a couple of minutes while you have deigned to lower your intelligence quotient by at least 30 points and tried to listen to the gibberish on the videos from Azzam Al Amriki as he is also known (Azzam the American in Arabic). While he is going on about "Muslim lands" usw.
In the West we have certain barriers but immigration goes on within limits. You can bring your religion, or your lack of belief, with you and practise it (or alternatively promulgate scientific logic in the name of non-belief). Try this in "Muslim lands". The likelihood is that you will be doing summat illegal. Talk your newly found friends in the new country along to a congregation who share your belief system, or persuade them that the whole concept of religion is the load of idiotic garbage that it is.
The chances are that you are putting their lives at risk! This is apostasy. It is illegal. They could end up being beheaded or hanged.
For doing summat that is an essential part of democracy. Using your mind to decide what is right for you.
This is definitely not a two-way street. There is a dictatorial imposition of Islam in most "Muslim countries" which most of us would not be able to accept. The best you can hope for as a foreigner is that they will allow you to stay with your belief system - but you had better not try to convert the natives. Even buying a beer for one of them can get them into serious trouble!
It is interesting how this works. We are supposed to go on allowing people to convert to Islam and not complain. Quite why .... But go to their "part of the world" and try and bring them some sense?
Frankly I would dismiss the whole concept of "Muslim lands" as nonsense anyway. That makes religion a politically enforced imposition. Eventually belief should be a matter of individual choice, not a government-enforced dictated philosophy.
Imagine the outcry if the "West" imposed Christian rule. Back to the 16th century and burning heretics at the stake. Fancy seeing Anjem Choudary burned at the stake anyone? (OK - stop fantasising, even if the prospect is amusing).
There are times that you think that maybe Geert Wilders has a point. In this respect at least, it is not easy to challenge his views.
But it is also worth remembering that this is often used as a racist anti-immigration device and we should be careful not to take it too far. After the gruesome murder of the off-duty soldier in London this week a lot of the protests that started off by being strictly anti-Islam have taken on racial overtones in certain quarters.
Michael Adebolajo paraded the tools of his gruesome act and gruesome belief system before the cameras this week before the police shot and injured him. He is a fanatical Islamist, born in the UK of Nigerian parents. An element of the anti-immigration chorus this week have been asking why "we let these people in". His parents, for the record, are devout Christians. Their son rebelled against their beliefs and became a Muslim convert.
A bit like Adam Gadahn did in the US. A bit like John Walker Lindh did in the US. A bit like Eric Breininger did in Germany. There is an Irish guy, whose name escapes me, who went down the same road and has made a name for himself in Ireland with his statements on the subject. Another famous case can be found in Denmark.
All white males.
The question is not so much here about the immigration or the ethnic background. The question is rather whether we have to worry about democratic principle and the very one-sided situation which we have reached where we can go on allowing people in democratic countries to convert without question to a barbaric and pre-medieval belief system while elsewhere in the world the state advocates of that belief system will not reciprocate.
Democratic principle is important. Quite how we defend it in circumstances like this is another matter, and some extremely difficult decisions need to be taken. Though quite what?
The really politically savvy might. The American general public though?
He has a bounty upon his head. Find him, bring him to justice - dead or alive as in the Old West - he is worth quite a bit of money, the reward is substantial.
He is wanted - for treason!
It doesn't happen very often that an American commits an act (or series of acts) that lead(s) to a charge of treason. You might imagine that his photo would be everywhere and that his name would be on everyone's lips.
Not that you will find him in the US any time soon. He took off for Pakistan years ago and is now allegedly somewhere in that country. He appears on Al-Qaeda videos once in a while spewing out the usual fundamentalist gibberish. In one of these he renounced his American nationality while ripping up his American passport. Islamic soap opera stuff.
The videos are often in English, occasionally in Arabic. English might have its uses in Pakistan. Arabic is indicative of the company he keeps (the exiled Arab fundamentalist leaders are his best mates). Whether he speaks Urdu, which will enable him to speak to most Pakistanis, I am uncertain, though I would imagine so. His wife comes from Afghanistan, so maybe he speaks Pashto as well.
An interesting polyglot that would make him, for all his ridiculous political and religious opinions.
He is though an interesting product of democratic culture, for all his attempts to deny it and decry it. His grandfather was Jewish (and he often comments upon this while spewing out the usual hatred of Jews on the videos). The real family name was Pearlman. His parents converted to Christianity and adopted the name Gadahn. Their interesting trade or profession has an "only in California" feel to it - they are goat herders!
As the next generation young Adam converted to Islam.
All well and not so good. Democratic principles - you have the choice, you can do it, it is not illegal. He could have chosen to become a Buddhist, a follower or Greek or Norse mythology. He could have chosen the traditional beliefs of native Americans.
And if he had any sense he might have become an atheist and write all beliefs off as occasionally interesting but generally silly, outmoded and downright illogical. Or an agnostic at the very least.
He chose Islam. All well and not so good.
So think for a couple of minutes while you have deigned to lower your intelligence quotient by at least 30 points and tried to listen to the gibberish on the videos from Azzam Al Amriki as he is also known (Azzam the American in Arabic). While he is going on about "Muslim lands" usw.
In the West we have certain barriers but immigration goes on within limits. You can bring your religion, or your lack of belief, with you and practise it (or alternatively promulgate scientific logic in the name of non-belief). Try this in "Muslim lands". The likelihood is that you will be doing summat illegal. Talk your newly found friends in the new country along to a congregation who share your belief system, or persuade them that the whole concept of religion is the load of idiotic garbage that it is.
The chances are that you are putting their lives at risk! This is apostasy. It is illegal. They could end up being beheaded or hanged.
For doing summat that is an essential part of democracy. Using your mind to decide what is right for you.
This is definitely not a two-way street. There is a dictatorial imposition of Islam in most "Muslim countries" which most of us would not be able to accept. The best you can hope for as a foreigner is that they will allow you to stay with your belief system - but you had better not try to convert the natives. Even buying a beer for one of them can get them into serious trouble!
It is interesting how this works. We are supposed to go on allowing people to convert to Islam and not complain. Quite why .... But go to their "part of the world" and try and bring them some sense?
Frankly I would dismiss the whole concept of "Muslim lands" as nonsense anyway. That makes religion a politically enforced imposition. Eventually belief should be a matter of individual choice, not a government-enforced dictated philosophy.
Imagine the outcry if the "West" imposed Christian rule. Back to the 16th century and burning heretics at the stake. Fancy seeing Anjem Choudary burned at the stake anyone? (OK - stop fantasising, even if the prospect is amusing).
There are times that you think that maybe Geert Wilders has a point. In this respect at least, it is not easy to challenge his views.
But it is also worth remembering that this is often used as a racist anti-immigration device and we should be careful not to take it too far. After the gruesome murder of the off-duty soldier in London this week a lot of the protests that started off by being strictly anti-Islam have taken on racial overtones in certain quarters.
Michael Adebolajo paraded the tools of his gruesome act and gruesome belief system before the cameras this week before the police shot and injured him. He is a fanatical Islamist, born in the UK of Nigerian parents. An element of the anti-immigration chorus this week have been asking why "we let these people in". His parents, for the record, are devout Christians. Their son rebelled against their beliefs and became a Muslim convert.
A bit like Adam Gadahn did in the US. A bit like John Walker Lindh did in the US. A bit like Eric Breininger did in Germany. There is an Irish guy, whose name escapes me, who went down the same road and has made a name for himself in Ireland with his statements on the subject. Another famous case can be found in Denmark.
All white males.
The question is not so much here about the immigration or the ethnic background. The question is rather whether we have to worry about democratic principle and the very one-sided situation which we have reached where we can go on allowing people in democratic countries to convert without question to a barbaric and pre-medieval belief system while elsewhere in the world the state advocates of that belief system will not reciprocate.
Democratic principle is important. Quite how we defend it in circumstances like this is another matter, and some extremely difficult decisions need to be taken. Though quite what?
Update (December 31st, 2021). Gadahn was killed in a drone attack launched against him and another American jihadist in 2015.
Friday, 24 May 2013
What is easy, what is difficult
It is easy to ask questions.
It is difficult to come up with the right answers.
It is easy to say summat is wrong.
It is difficult to do summat to put things right.
It is easy to criticise the unemployed when there are no jobs out there.
It is difficult to find a meaningful job for an unemployed person, particularly when there are no jobs out there.
And if tomorrow I have 10,000 Euro a year less I will be poor without question.
On the other hand if I have 10,000 Euro a year more, I will not be rich.
Becoming poor is easy.
Getting rich is difficult!
It is difficult to come up with the right answers.
It is easy to say summat is wrong.
It is difficult to do summat to put things right.
It is easy to criticise the unemployed when there are no jobs out there.
It is difficult to find a meaningful job for an unemployed person, particularly when there are no jobs out there.
And if tomorrow I have 10,000 Euro a year less I will be poor without question.
On the other hand if I have 10,000 Euro a year more, I will not be rich.
Becoming poor is easy.
Getting rich is difficult!
Thursday, 23 May 2013
A quick guide to silly European stereotypes and Europe's ladies of the night - Part 6
I was asked the other day why I had never got round to Germany on this topic.
It is not actually an easy question to answer, but maybe as I live here and as I have maybe become more German than anything else, it is not quite so easy to be objective. It is, if you like, looking at the intellectual potential of women generally and then looking at your wife and trying to stay objective. She is very bright, she is such a nice lady ....
OK - German stereotypes. Firstly I will steer clear of all the silly 1940s references when it comes to German stereotypes as they are no longer relevant, much as some people in the UK might think otherwise. I also discovered 'tother day that Nigel Farage of the EXP (UKIP to its misguided supporters) has a German wife. She may have gone in the reverse direction from the one I have taken, I cannot comment further.
So firstly, I will offer you this wonderful article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22624104
Now isn't that good???!!!
Hang the red, black and gold flag on the window and feel really chuffed for the next 45 minutes. Nowt to do with the 1940s - how about now?
So here we are cosmopolitan, open-minded, sensible, and loved! The whole world over!
Stop whispering "cut the crowing, Tony, and get back to the stereotypes. And remember that Pew Global Attitudes report you mentioned 'tother day that wasn't quite as complimentary". (See my blog article "On the EU - why the UK would be better off not leaving, what Europeans think at the moment of the EU and the Euro" dated May 17th, 2013).
OK - word one "arrogant". It is curious really that a country whose leaders seem to bend over backwards to be reasonable is regarded as arrogant. At times the ability to get over what needs to be done could be handled better - see the Greek financial crisis - but it is actually quite rare for the German government of any stripe to go into a meeting with a "take it or leave it" attitude - see the UK in comparison. As for individual Germans, well I have met a few who are arrogant, but many who are not. I could say the same in every country in which I have worked (except Norway, where most everyone seemed reasonable).
And remember that the current German government are not so much "arrogant", as "conservative". Which I would view as more of a problem. So the Greek bailout was carried out following conservative principles. You must pay back the money and cut spending. Anyone want to tell me that the UK does not apply the same thinking to its own economy?
No. Right, move on.
Words two and three "efficient" and "punctual". As I see myself as efficient and punctual, I do not see this as a problem. In fact I regard them as laudable qualities. Interestingly though, a few weeks ago I saw a poll in which only 30% of Germans actually saw themselves in these terms. So either people here underestimate their potential in these directions, or the stereotypes do not actually fit.
Go catch a train here some time. Brilliant engineering on the very fast ICEs, between the major cities, good reliable services on suburban lines - usually punctual. Once in a while a train breaks down though, and then you never hear the last of it. So some things do matter.
Word four "beer" - as in "they drink a lot of ..... ". True. I think that Germans finish second or third in terms of drinking beer per capita when you compare all the countries of the world. And they have an enormous variety of the stuff. And there are the usual arguments between regions as to who produces the best brew. Many Bavarians will have you believe that the only real beer in the country is produced in (needless to say) Bavaria, and anyone who has been to the Oktoberfest will agree that there is some excellent beer to be quaffed down there.
But realise also that beer is not the only drink for which the country should be known. There are some excellent wines (mainly from the West and South-West), some very strong liqueurs like Jägermeister usw. And then of course in Hessen (and particularly in Frankfurt) apple wine. Which is alcoholic. So you are not limited to beer here.
Word five "cars". As in they manufacture cars that are amazing that never break down and last forever .... Well the automobile industry is still alive even if Opel are having problems. As I personally do not drive, I cannot really comment about the quality these days.
Word six "humour" as in "they have no sense of .... ". Try watching Mario Barth some time. He is very funny. You don't speak German? So you wouldn't understand him? Then how would you know that they do not have a sense of humour? (Come on, we are in Germany - be logical!). There are also quite a few satirical magazines, there is a fondness for slapstick humour on television. And a number of brilliant cartoonists - Uli Stein, Ralph Ruthe usw. Yes, Germans can be very serious as well, but the humour is there if you look for it, and you can speak the language (well it helps).
Try at this moment my favourite Ruthe cartoon from You Tube (and it helps if you speak German!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_xl9boG8Qg
Not many silly stereotypes to date then. Well I did say that I would have problems analysing this country ....
Move on.
I recall that during the 2006 World Cup one American politician remarking upon the fact that Germany has legalised prostitution and that the country ought to change its laws on that and quick. Given the fact that millions of visitors were due to descend upon the country and thousands of women were likely to be inveigled into working in the "industry"!
One should hasten to add that his concern was about foreign (i.e. non-German) women being trafficked, and it might have been a fair point. The German media chided him gently about interfering in other people's business, and more or less let the matter drop.
Really then it is a question where you are as to whether you see it as a "problem". In Frankfurt there is right across the road from the main railway station the Bahnhofviertel with its array of sex shops and champagne bars (beware!) and "Sex Inns". The area is tawdry and uninspiring, but not particularly dangerous. That it is parked slap bang between the station, the financial district and the major shopping area is unfortunate, but if you do not want to wander round the neighbourhood, it is easy enough to avoid by just staying on the S-Bahn.
Apparently very few German women work in the neighbourhood, and despite the fact that they are supposed to be registered, subject to health checks usw, there are occasional stories of women being trafficked there. It takes a bit of believing that women in Latin America, Asia usw arrived there that easily of their own accord, and were able to communicate. Yes, of course the police do come round and check permits occasionally (obviously they have nowt better to do).
There are no German women who work in the industry? Not exactly. There are also the upmarket "clubs" essentially aimed at businessmen and apparently it is a bit of a different story there. Not only in Frankfurt, but also elsewhere in the country there are also clubs specialising for international businessmen from countries like Japan with apparently prices to match.
Different cities have different attitudes to the "industry" though. In Cologne, for example, you would be unaware that any such activities went on if you never go out of the city centre. The authorities often only give licences to clubs out in obscure suburbs. Which frankly strikes me as the sensible way to go about things. That way they would be less of an eyesore and would only attract the clientele that wanted to use them.
All told Germans tend to be open minded on the subject of sex, although it is also worth bearing in mind that this is a capitalist country and this is one of the legalised ways of making money. Going anywhere where the industry is prevalent - see the Reeperbahn and the neighbouring streets in Hamburg for example - the phrase "caveat emptor" is advised. If you must indulge (not that I would advise you to), then take care that you understand everything that is involved. There are legal restrictions and then there are grey areas. You are very much advised to know where you stand with both.
It is not actually an easy question to answer, but maybe as I live here and as I have maybe become more German than anything else, it is not quite so easy to be objective. It is, if you like, looking at the intellectual potential of women generally and then looking at your wife and trying to stay objective. She is very bright, she is such a nice lady ....
OK - German stereotypes. Firstly I will steer clear of all the silly 1940s references when it comes to German stereotypes as they are no longer relevant, much as some people in the UK might think otherwise. I also discovered 'tother day that Nigel Farage of the EXP (UKIP to its misguided supporters) has a German wife. She may have gone in the reverse direction from the one I have taken, I cannot comment further.
So firstly, I will offer you this wonderful article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22624104
Now isn't that good???!!!
Hang the red, black and gold flag on the window and feel really chuffed for the next 45 minutes. Nowt to do with the 1940s - how about now?
So here we are cosmopolitan, open-minded, sensible, and loved! The whole world over!
Stop whispering "cut the crowing, Tony, and get back to the stereotypes. And remember that Pew Global Attitudes report you mentioned 'tother day that wasn't quite as complimentary". (See my blog article "On the EU - why the UK would be better off not leaving, what Europeans think at the moment of the EU and the Euro" dated May 17th, 2013).
OK - word one "arrogant". It is curious really that a country whose leaders seem to bend over backwards to be reasonable is regarded as arrogant. At times the ability to get over what needs to be done could be handled better - see the Greek financial crisis - but it is actually quite rare for the German government of any stripe to go into a meeting with a "take it or leave it" attitude - see the UK in comparison. As for individual Germans, well I have met a few who are arrogant, but many who are not. I could say the same in every country in which I have worked (except Norway, where most everyone seemed reasonable).
And remember that the current German government are not so much "arrogant", as "conservative". Which I would view as more of a problem. So the Greek bailout was carried out following conservative principles. You must pay back the money and cut spending. Anyone want to tell me that the UK does not apply the same thinking to its own economy?
No. Right, move on.
Words two and three "efficient" and "punctual". As I see myself as efficient and punctual, I do not see this as a problem. In fact I regard them as laudable qualities. Interestingly though, a few weeks ago I saw a poll in which only 30% of Germans actually saw themselves in these terms. So either people here underestimate their potential in these directions, or the stereotypes do not actually fit.
Go catch a train here some time. Brilliant engineering on the very fast ICEs, between the major cities, good reliable services on suburban lines - usually punctual. Once in a while a train breaks down though, and then you never hear the last of it. So some things do matter.
Word four "beer" - as in "they drink a lot of ..... ". True. I think that Germans finish second or third in terms of drinking beer per capita when you compare all the countries of the world. And they have an enormous variety of the stuff. And there are the usual arguments between regions as to who produces the best brew. Many Bavarians will have you believe that the only real beer in the country is produced in (needless to say) Bavaria, and anyone who has been to the Oktoberfest will agree that there is some excellent beer to be quaffed down there.
But realise also that beer is not the only drink for which the country should be known. There are some excellent wines (mainly from the West and South-West), some very strong liqueurs like Jägermeister usw. And then of course in Hessen (and particularly in Frankfurt) apple wine. Which is alcoholic. So you are not limited to beer here.
Word five "cars". As in they manufacture cars that are amazing that never break down and last forever .... Well the automobile industry is still alive even if Opel are having problems. As I personally do not drive, I cannot really comment about the quality these days.
Word six "humour" as in "they have no sense of .... ". Try watching Mario Barth some time. He is very funny. You don't speak German? So you wouldn't understand him? Then how would you know that they do not have a sense of humour? (Come on, we are in Germany - be logical!). There are also quite a few satirical magazines, there is a fondness for slapstick humour on television. And a number of brilliant cartoonists - Uli Stein, Ralph Ruthe usw. Yes, Germans can be very serious as well, but the humour is there if you look for it, and you can speak the language (well it helps).
Try at this moment my favourite Ruthe cartoon from You Tube (and it helps if you speak German!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_xl9boG8Qg
Not many silly stereotypes to date then. Well I did say that I would have problems analysing this country ....
Move on.
I recall that during the 2006 World Cup one American politician remarking upon the fact that Germany has legalised prostitution and that the country ought to change its laws on that and quick. Given the fact that millions of visitors were due to descend upon the country and thousands of women were likely to be inveigled into working in the "industry"!
One should hasten to add that his concern was about foreign (i.e. non-German) women being trafficked, and it might have been a fair point. The German media chided him gently about interfering in other people's business, and more or less let the matter drop.
Really then it is a question where you are as to whether you see it as a "problem". In Frankfurt there is right across the road from the main railway station the Bahnhofviertel with its array of sex shops and champagne bars (beware!) and "Sex Inns". The area is tawdry and uninspiring, but not particularly dangerous. That it is parked slap bang between the station, the financial district and the major shopping area is unfortunate, but if you do not want to wander round the neighbourhood, it is easy enough to avoid by just staying on the S-Bahn.
Apparently very few German women work in the neighbourhood, and despite the fact that they are supposed to be registered, subject to health checks usw, there are occasional stories of women being trafficked there. It takes a bit of believing that women in Latin America, Asia usw arrived there that easily of their own accord, and were able to communicate. Yes, of course the police do come round and check permits occasionally (obviously they have nowt better to do).
There are no German women who work in the industry? Not exactly. There are also the upmarket "clubs" essentially aimed at businessmen and apparently it is a bit of a different story there. Not only in Frankfurt, but also elsewhere in the country there are also clubs specialising for international businessmen from countries like Japan with apparently prices to match.
Different cities have different attitudes to the "industry" though. In Cologne, for example, you would be unaware that any such activities went on if you never go out of the city centre. The authorities often only give licences to clubs out in obscure suburbs. Which frankly strikes me as the sensible way to go about things. That way they would be less of an eyesore and would only attract the clientele that wanted to use them.
All told Germans tend to be open minded on the subject of sex, although it is also worth bearing in mind that this is a capitalist country and this is one of the legalised ways of making money. Going anywhere where the industry is prevalent - see the Reeperbahn and the neighbouring streets in Hamburg for example - the phrase "caveat emptor" is advised. If you must indulge (not that I would advise you to), then take care that you understand everything that is involved. There are legal restrictions and then there are grey areas. You are very much advised to know where you stand with both.
Monday, 20 May 2013
Rain in Hessen, rain in Minnesota and how the world is getting smaller
At 2200 last night (10 PM if you insist) my wife rang me from Frankfurt's main railway station. She had been out visiting friends in the suburbs (out towards Mainz), and despite me warning in her in advance, she had gone out without any of her collection of umbrellas. And needless to say it was raining. Bucketing down actually. I needed to pick her up from the local railway station - armed with the appropriate umbrella.
Not that I was complaining. I am one of those individuals who actually likes rain. Check out the trees this morning, the grass on the verges across the road, the plants in the neighbour's garden - they all look healthier and greener where they should be green. The mainly dry and cold winter had left them parched. We have had the occasional rain shower over the months, but nothing really substantial. Last night came a real soaking. It was needed.
My wife should know better really. Coming from Thailand where they get real rain in the monsoon season ..... Check out the vegetation in Thailand if you ever get the opportunity. It is amazing. Tropical, of course, lush, a wonder to behold. Quite where the multitude of Thai birds hide when it is raining (really raining) I have no idea. One more piece of research to follow up!
By a curious coincidence there was suddenly heavy rain in Minnesota at the same time. I happen to know this as I was following the box score of the game (baseball for the uninitiated) between the (Boston) Red Sox and the (Minnesota) Twins on yahoo sports (with an occasional flick to mlb.com). My reasons for supporting the Red Sox I have explained previously. I can be thoroughly childish (like all old men, the older you get the more you revert to childish behaviour, and I always was a bad loser). When the team is losing I switch off.
As it was though John Lackey was pitching very well for once, the score was 3-1 and all looked well with the world. Then the rain came - in Minnesota. Checked this morning - 5-1, as childish as ever I went to check the highlights on mlb.com (I would not have done so if they had lost). 3 hours rain in Minnesota. 3 hour delay in the game. The rain lasted a bit longer here ....
What strikes you here though is how easy it is now to follow baseball in the USA. The Internet has shrunk the world. In 1993 I was working on a project in Paris (France, not Texas) where I first encountered the Internet. The coming phenomenon I was told, though hardly anyone knew it at the time. By 1996 much of the world knew about it, and for good and bad it has grown and grown since.
So now I can find out at a moment's notice what the weather is in Minnesota, I-San province, Corrèze, you name it. And follow baseball games in Boston, Aussie Rules Football in Melbourne, world title fights in Manila usw.
And hear live speeches by some of the world's comedians - sorry that should read "politicians" - where relevant. And read newspapers from Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, the Bahamas, Fiji, you name it.
For a citizen of the world, a committed internationalist like myself - great.
It doesn't stop you being parochial - necessarily. I will not turn into a Yankees fan tomorrow, for example. But it keeps you informed and up to date in a way that was not possible even 20 years ago. I remember the pre-Internet world where all news was local, well sort of, and you needed to make a lot more effort to understand what was going on around the world in places that interest you.
There are many benefits that result, if some downsides. There are many benefits that could ensue if we knew how to realise them (I still think that creating work and jobs that people can carry out on the web is still in its infancy, and boy are the scammers out there in force!). I think that in 30 years time what we have now will seem surprisingly limited - a pity that I will not be around to see it.
And perhaps we will finally have dealt with the scourge that is the creation of viruses by the Internet criminals. And then again ....
All told though the world has become smaller, and despite the efforts of those idiots who crave nationalism and the dominance of the nation state, the movement in that direction will continue. All we need now is a way for the Internet to economically empower all its users and not just the handful who benefit from it. Quite how, though, remains to be seen.
Not that I was complaining. I am one of those individuals who actually likes rain. Check out the trees this morning, the grass on the verges across the road, the plants in the neighbour's garden - they all look healthier and greener where they should be green. The mainly dry and cold winter had left them parched. We have had the occasional rain shower over the months, but nothing really substantial. Last night came a real soaking. It was needed.
My wife should know better really. Coming from Thailand where they get real rain in the monsoon season ..... Check out the vegetation in Thailand if you ever get the opportunity. It is amazing. Tropical, of course, lush, a wonder to behold. Quite where the multitude of Thai birds hide when it is raining (really raining) I have no idea. One more piece of research to follow up!
By a curious coincidence there was suddenly heavy rain in Minnesota at the same time. I happen to know this as I was following the box score of the game (baseball for the uninitiated) between the (Boston) Red Sox and the (Minnesota) Twins on yahoo sports (with an occasional flick to mlb.com). My reasons for supporting the Red Sox I have explained previously. I can be thoroughly childish (like all old men, the older you get the more you revert to childish behaviour, and I always was a bad loser). When the team is losing I switch off.
As it was though John Lackey was pitching very well for once, the score was 3-1 and all looked well with the world. Then the rain came - in Minnesota. Checked this morning - 5-1, as childish as ever I went to check the highlights on mlb.com (I would not have done so if they had lost). 3 hours rain in Minnesota. 3 hour delay in the game. The rain lasted a bit longer here ....
What strikes you here though is how easy it is now to follow baseball in the USA. The Internet has shrunk the world. In 1993 I was working on a project in Paris (France, not Texas) where I first encountered the Internet. The coming phenomenon I was told, though hardly anyone knew it at the time. By 1996 much of the world knew about it, and for good and bad it has grown and grown since.
So now I can find out at a moment's notice what the weather is in Minnesota, I-San province, Corrèze, you name it. And follow baseball games in Boston, Aussie Rules Football in Melbourne, world title fights in Manila usw.
And hear live speeches by some of the world's comedians - sorry that should read "politicians" - where relevant. And read newspapers from Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, the Bahamas, Fiji, you name it.
For a citizen of the world, a committed internationalist like myself - great.
It doesn't stop you being parochial - necessarily. I will not turn into a Yankees fan tomorrow, for example. But it keeps you informed and up to date in a way that was not possible even 20 years ago. I remember the pre-Internet world where all news was local, well sort of, and you needed to make a lot more effort to understand what was going on around the world in places that interest you.
There are many benefits that result, if some downsides. There are many benefits that could ensue if we knew how to realise them (I still think that creating work and jobs that people can carry out on the web is still in its infancy, and boy are the scammers out there in force!). I think that in 30 years time what we have now will seem surprisingly limited - a pity that I will not be around to see it.
And perhaps we will finally have dealt with the scourge that is the creation of viruses by the Internet criminals. And then again ....
All told though the world has become smaller, and despite the efforts of those idiots who crave nationalism and the dominance of the nation state, the movement in that direction will continue. All we need now is a way for the Internet to economically empower all its users and not just the handful who benefit from it. Quite how, though, remains to be seen.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Thought for the day
Because I do not like something personally does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with it!
Saturday, 18 May 2013
Jorge Rafael Videla D.R.I.P
The "R.I.P" should not need any explanation. The "D" stands for "Don't"!
One of Argentina's brutal military dictators has died. A person whom nobody should remember with any sadness and someone who does not deserve to be forgotten or forgiven. See the following assessment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/jorge-rafael-videla-dies-dead-death_n_3292636.html?ir=World
He follows Chile's Augusto Pinochet, fellow former Argentinian Leopoldo Galtieri, Brazil's Emílio Garrastazu Médici and others to the grave. Men whose reputation for torture and human rights abuse in Latin America speaks of the evil methods they imposed upon their peoples to enforce their rule and hold on to power.
That there were some forces in their countries seeking violent revolution to change the regimes cannot be denied. But in no way can it be said that the ends justified the means when it came to defeating these groups. Nor does the evidence point to the fact that only violent Marxist-inspired opposition figures were arrested and tortured and killed. Among the "disappeared" were many people who were hardly that radical. Idealistic maybe. And since when has idealism been an excuse for the imposition of a violent dictatorship and the use of torture?
More details on the events in Latin America in the 1960s, 70s and 80s can be obtained from the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (and for those concerned about the "left" you can also find plenty of material there on what happened in the former Communist Bloc).
The world has moved on. Latin America has moved on. But we should stand firm and utter the words "never again!" (or "nunca más!") at the thought of the Videlas and the Pinochets and the Médicis and their like (and the likes of Pol Pot, Ulbricht, and Ceaușescu if you insist - this piece is not about political bias!).
We have standards, we should abide by them. No matter how difficult times are, no matter the severity of the problems that we face.
Jorge Rafael Videla D.R.I.P!
One of Argentina's brutal military dictators has died. A person whom nobody should remember with any sadness and someone who does not deserve to be forgotten or forgiven. See the following assessment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/jorge-rafael-videla-dies-dead-death_n_3292636.html?ir=World
He follows Chile's Augusto Pinochet, fellow former Argentinian Leopoldo Galtieri, Brazil's Emílio Garrastazu Médici and others to the grave. Men whose reputation for torture and human rights abuse in Latin America speaks of the evil methods they imposed upon their peoples to enforce their rule and hold on to power.
That there were some forces in their countries seeking violent revolution to change the regimes cannot be denied. But in no way can it be said that the ends justified the means when it came to defeating these groups. Nor does the evidence point to the fact that only violent Marxist-inspired opposition figures were arrested and tortured and killed. Among the "disappeared" were many people who were hardly that radical. Idealistic maybe. And since when has idealism been an excuse for the imposition of a violent dictatorship and the use of torture?
More details on the events in Latin America in the 1960s, 70s and 80s can be obtained from the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (and for those concerned about the "left" you can also find plenty of material there on what happened in the former Communist Bloc).
The world has moved on. Latin America has moved on. But we should stand firm and utter the words "never again!" (or "nunca más!") at the thought of the Videlas and the Pinochets and the Médicis and their like (and the likes of Pol Pot, Ulbricht, and Ceaușescu if you insist - this piece is not about political bias!).
We have standards, we should abide by them. No matter how difficult times are, no matter the severity of the problems that we face.
Jorge Rafael Videla D.R.I.P!
Friday, 17 May 2013
On the EU - why the UK would be better off not leaving, what Europeans think at the moment of the EU and the Euro
A couple of interesting articles and commentary from me:
1. From yahoo news yesterday - why it is not in the UK's economic interest to leave the EU.
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-uk-trade-may-struggle-stand-still-eu-120635042.html
Comment: it does not have a lot of depth perhaps but covers a lot of the ground. As the authors are, I believe, American, it can be seen as reasonably neutral. I think that it is totally correct - but then I would, wouldn't I?
Because the EU is not amazing (in fact it is performing badly to very badly at the moment) does not make the alternatives better - in fact the choice can be a lot worse, as indicated here. As I am not a supporter of or believer in the unfettered market economy (see also yesterday's article and refer back again and again to the 2008 crash), I will immediately write off the arguments of the English Xenophobe Party (also known as the UKIP) and its Tory fellow travellers. See elsewhere on this blog for more detail.
Reforms are needed? Yes, see also below. But giving business the reforms that Cameron wants? Haven't we been giving business everything that it wants for the past 30 years? They always get what they want! We already have neo-liberalism. And we are in a confounded mess as a result. More scope to do more damage????
2. From the Pew Global Attitudes survey on European attitudes (in 8 countries - I wish they had surveyed all 27) to the EU, their economies usw.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/13/the-new-sick-man-of-europe-the-european-union/
Comment: pretty damning and it should serve as a wake-up call.
That said there is a bit of the two headed monster about some of the answers. Governments need to create more jobs, reduce unemployment and cut public spending? At one and the same time? Please tell me how this works in the real world? See Greece, see Spain where unemployment has rocketed as a result of cutting public spending (and note the number of people in Greece and Spain who think that this is the right thing to do!).
Eventually repeat to yourself the old axiom: you cannot deflate your way out of a recession! Yes we need investment from the private sector. Yes we need reindustrialisation (light engineering anyway). There is no way that we should be importing from China goods that we could easily manufacture here! Particularly when the manpower is available to do the work here!
The EU should be protecting its own workforce. Protectionism should be applied in the short term to get Europe moving again. The ridiculous cheap fixed exchange rate with China should be ended immediately! They should be forced to float their currency as everyone else has to, and be forced to compete. The killing of industrial jobs in Europe will only end when we enforce that policy!
Three things strike me as interesting in the Pew report.
Disappointing are the German attitudes, which do not coincide with those that I have met from people that I know or or whose opinions I have read here. It also says that government change in 2013 will not affect much, if anything. Merkel's CDU in a grand coalition with the SDP, or the CDU in a coalition with the the German Green Party are the most likely options. The latter might change things a bit, but not enough. German unemployment is still too high IMHO, and leaving things as they stand will not lead to any improvement. And if the rest of Europe is forced into continued austerity, Germany will eventually pay a price.
The second interesting thing, and a real positive, is that in all the countries asked, people want to keep the Euro. Sensible! Giving Europe back to the whims of currency speculators and the usual massive rip-offs at change bureaux makes absolutely no sense! And if the Peseta or Drachma came back, they would not just fall, they would plummet, creating another set of problems that would take years to resolve. High rates of inflation would ensue, and that would not help the unemployment crisis at all!
And thirdly - to my amazement - nobody sees the UK as the most arrogant nation in Europe. Quite why .... A country that turns up at every meeting of the EU and says "we're right, the rest of you are all wrong!" isn't arrogant? Not that they are usually right either. Not in the Euro, following its own path regardless, all-time record levels of private debt, critical of everyone else and heading into its third recession in four years ..... OK. Really good, eh?
Anyway the report is worth studying further. Even with the inconsistencies. Whether anyone will wake up and take some action, particularly where unemployment is concerned, I very much doubt, but like water dripping from a roof - someone might eventually take notice and do summat!
1. From yahoo news yesterday - why it is not in the UK's economic interest to leave the EU.
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-uk-trade-may-struggle-stand-still-eu-120635042.html
Comment: it does not have a lot of depth perhaps but covers a lot of the ground. As the authors are, I believe, American, it can be seen as reasonably neutral. I think that it is totally correct - but then I would, wouldn't I?
Because the EU is not amazing (in fact it is performing badly to very badly at the moment) does not make the alternatives better - in fact the choice can be a lot worse, as indicated here. As I am not a supporter of or believer in the unfettered market economy (see also yesterday's article and refer back again and again to the 2008 crash), I will immediately write off the arguments of the English Xenophobe Party (also known as the UKIP) and its Tory fellow travellers. See elsewhere on this blog for more detail.
Reforms are needed? Yes, see also below. But giving business the reforms that Cameron wants? Haven't we been giving business everything that it wants for the past 30 years? They always get what they want! We already have neo-liberalism. And we are in a confounded mess as a result. More scope to do more damage????
2. From the Pew Global Attitudes survey on European attitudes (in 8 countries - I wish they had surveyed all 27) to the EU, their economies usw.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/13/the-new-sick-man-of-europe-the-european-union/
Comment: pretty damning and it should serve as a wake-up call.
That said there is a bit of the two headed monster about some of the answers. Governments need to create more jobs, reduce unemployment and cut public spending? At one and the same time? Please tell me how this works in the real world? See Greece, see Spain where unemployment has rocketed as a result of cutting public spending (and note the number of people in Greece and Spain who think that this is the right thing to do!).
Eventually repeat to yourself the old axiom: you cannot deflate your way out of a recession! Yes we need investment from the private sector. Yes we need reindustrialisation (light engineering anyway). There is no way that we should be importing from China goods that we could easily manufacture here! Particularly when the manpower is available to do the work here!
The EU should be protecting its own workforce. Protectionism should be applied in the short term to get Europe moving again. The ridiculous cheap fixed exchange rate with China should be ended immediately! They should be forced to float their currency as everyone else has to, and be forced to compete. The killing of industrial jobs in Europe will only end when we enforce that policy!
Three things strike me as interesting in the Pew report.
Disappointing are the German attitudes, which do not coincide with those that I have met from people that I know or or whose opinions I have read here. It also says that government change in 2013 will not affect much, if anything. Merkel's CDU in a grand coalition with the SDP, or the CDU in a coalition with the the German Green Party are the most likely options. The latter might change things a bit, but not enough. German unemployment is still too high IMHO, and leaving things as they stand will not lead to any improvement. And if the rest of Europe is forced into continued austerity, Germany will eventually pay a price.
The second interesting thing, and a real positive, is that in all the countries asked, people want to keep the Euro. Sensible! Giving Europe back to the whims of currency speculators and the usual massive rip-offs at change bureaux makes absolutely no sense! And if the Peseta or Drachma came back, they would not just fall, they would plummet, creating another set of problems that would take years to resolve. High rates of inflation would ensue, and that would not help the unemployment crisis at all!
And thirdly - to my amazement - nobody sees the UK as the most arrogant nation in Europe. Quite why .... A country that turns up at every meeting of the EU and says "we're right, the rest of you are all wrong!" isn't arrogant? Not that they are usually right either. Not in the Euro, following its own path regardless, all-time record levels of private debt, critical of everyone else and heading into its third recession in four years ..... OK. Really good, eh?
Anyway the report is worth studying further. Even with the inconsistencies. Whether anyone will wake up and take some action, particularly where unemployment is concerned, I very much doubt, but like water dripping from a roof - someone might eventually take notice and do summat!
Postscript (December 31st, 2021). The first link no longer exists unfortunately.
Thursday, 16 May 2013
When I get round to reading them
There are several interesting books on the shelves in the economics section in the book shop at the main railway station (Hauptbahnhof) in Frankfurt.
Mainly dealing with the crisis, and the shape of things to come.
I spend a lot of time there reading snippets from the books concerned. I have read several chapters from Professor Max Otte's 2006 work "Der Crash kommt" in which he foresaw the 2008 crash, for example. If money had permitted I would have bought it (being permanently broke, buying books is a luxury that I cannot afford). There are two later works from Professor Otte that I would like to get round to reading. He has the habit of saying uncomfortable things and being right.
I was drawn back into this world of economic thinking the other day on another LinkedIn poll. A lady from Canada (not the US, interestingly) was pushing an agenda about politics and the market economy - I quote verbatim: " Too many citizens have forgotten that because taxes must be handled by politicians and bureaucrats, we must maintain an political awareness and responsibility. If you don't see taxation as political you may not be all that involved politically. As Friedrich Hayek said: "Liberty and responsibility are inseparable." If you enjoy the liberties of taxation you must take the responsibilities of the political machine".
Apart from reminding me of a debate on one website a few years ago where an advocate of the "market economy" thinking was pushing a theory where in fact some 30-50% of the population would not even be part of the economy as they could not afford to be, this argument struck me as being the usual cliché ridden jargon that you encounter when listening to the advocates of the "market economy". Citizens who want a lifestyle that is not subject to the whims of the gamblers on the markets should also take political responsibility. The politicians and bureaucrats should also be there trying to ensure that the citizenry can survive the economic turpitude that surrounds us and accordingly we do not all simply disappear from view as we do not exist - economically at least!
When people start quoting Hayek to (or rather "at") me though, I tend to shake my head. Wasn't this where we were in the events that led to the 2008 crash. I have intermittently read Joseph Stiglitz's comments on this and he disagrees totally on Hayek's views. What I have read of Stiglitz, he sounds like he is talking sense. I felt like replying to the lady above "Have you read Stiglitz then?".
But as I have not myself read more than snippets, can I use that argument? There are a couple of books by Stiglitz (translated into German) on the shelf at Hauptbahnhof that I would very much like to read in full. It will in the mean time be interesting to know when Hayek's market economy will provide me with the means to be able to afford to pay for them! But then as I belong to the 30-50% (see above), there is probably no argument as economically I do not exist!
Mainly dealing with the crisis, and the shape of things to come.
I spend a lot of time there reading snippets from the books concerned. I have read several chapters from Professor Max Otte's 2006 work "Der Crash kommt" in which he foresaw the 2008 crash, for example. If money had permitted I would have bought it (being permanently broke, buying books is a luxury that I cannot afford). There are two later works from Professor Otte that I would like to get round to reading. He has the habit of saying uncomfortable things and being right.
I was drawn back into this world of economic thinking the other day on another LinkedIn poll. A lady from Canada (not the US, interestingly) was pushing an agenda about politics and the market economy - I quote verbatim: " Too many citizens have forgotten that because taxes must be handled by politicians and bureaucrats, we must maintain an political awareness and responsibility. If you don't see taxation as political you may not be all that involved politically. As Friedrich Hayek said: "Liberty and responsibility are inseparable." If you enjoy the liberties of taxation you must take the responsibilities of the political machine".
Apart from reminding me of a debate on one website a few years ago where an advocate of the "market economy" thinking was pushing a theory where in fact some 30-50% of the population would not even be part of the economy as they could not afford to be, this argument struck me as being the usual cliché ridden jargon that you encounter when listening to the advocates of the "market economy". Citizens who want a lifestyle that is not subject to the whims of the gamblers on the markets should also take political responsibility. The politicians and bureaucrats should also be there trying to ensure that the citizenry can survive the economic turpitude that surrounds us and accordingly we do not all simply disappear from view as we do not exist - economically at least!
When people start quoting Hayek to (or rather "at") me though, I tend to shake my head. Wasn't this where we were in the events that led to the 2008 crash. I have intermittently read Joseph Stiglitz's comments on this and he disagrees totally on Hayek's views. What I have read of Stiglitz, he sounds like he is talking sense. I felt like replying to the lady above "Have you read Stiglitz then?".
But as I have not myself read more than snippets, can I use that argument? There are a couple of books by Stiglitz (translated into German) on the shelf at Hauptbahnhof that I would very much like to read in full. It will in the mean time be interesting to know when Hayek's market economy will provide me with the means to be able to afford to pay for them! But then as I belong to the 30-50% (see above), there is probably no argument as economically I do not exist!
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
No way to treat a lady?
Over the years friends of mine have never been able to work it out. That I seem to be such a quiet, concerned, non-violent person and that I should be interested in .... boxing? To such an extent that during the days of my sports quiz successes (both locally and nationally within the UK in the 70s and 80s) that boxing was my specialist sport.
Well I have mentioned it on this blog before, but family tradition is summat to do with it - my father would often let me stay up late when I was a child to watch it if there were fights televised.
Yes, but people can get hurt, seriously, even killed! I know, I did stop to reflect about this when the excellent Welsh bantamweight, Johnny Owen, died after being knocked out in a fight in Los Angeles in 1980. As he had never lost a fight in his career before that, it wouldn't have seemed like he needed protecting too much - he wasn't one of those journeymen who turned up for a payday and risked losing badly. The number of professional fighters around who have fought 50 to 60 times and have lost 70-80% of their fights, including being knocked out a few times - it cannot be good for their long-term health ....
I know, but they know the risks (OK that is a weak excuse). Pugilistica dementia is often a long-term result. And it does not just affect the perpetual losers of the ring. Leading contenders (see the leading 50s and 60s American contenders like Ralph Dupas and Kenny Lane for example). Curiously though there is no pattern. Some people who have taken many a dreadful hammering somehow keep their wits about them well into a surprisingly healthy old age - check out Max Schmeling who lived until he was 99 and was reasonably compos mentis to the end.
One of the growth areas in recent years has been women's boxing. Women generally being on average more intelligent than men, you would imagine that they would know the dangers, right?
One of Germany's sporting icons in recent years is the now retired Regina Halmich. She featured on many televised events, fought a total of 56 times, winning all but 2 of them, and must by any standards have made a more than decent income from the sport. The last time that I saw her being interviewed she sounded very much like she still had her wits about her.
There was a time though that the prospect of two women competing in a boxing ring would have raised more than the proverbial eyebrow. Nat Fleischer, the founder of "The Ring" magazine and the doyen of boxing writers would never even contemplate women's boxing, in fact I still recall one editorial that he wrote where he condemned the whole concept, even if all the appropriate feminine parts were duly and properly protected.
Times of course have changed since Mister Fleischer died in 1972. It is not so much a question of femininity, but is rather to do with athleticism. While the argument is not all that inspiring (shall we say?), there will those who will point out women shot putters and discus throwers (and these days weightlifters) and tell you that it is all about athleticism. A female shot putter isn't trying to be a fashion model.
And then there were the other combat sports that have boomed since the 1980s where women were even known to fight men ..... and occasionally even win! So why should boxing be any different?
A question of profile maybe? Boxing is not wrestling or even karate. It has values, its reputation and traditions garnered over the years. It has rules, it has safety standards. It has commissions to watch over all these things.
Some of these commissions need reminding occasionally though that they have responsibilities. A fighter who has become a virtual punchbag needs to have their licence withdrawn before they get seriously hurt. Not many people would put themselves in a boxing ring if they did not need the payday - at least not many people with losing records at least. In both these instances this applies equally to men and women.
One of the downsides of boxing over the years though has been the way the records of some fighters are "stuffed" with easy victories over "stiffs". This is also beginning to apply to both men and women. While accepting the fact that it is not always easy to get good opponents for a talented upcoming fighter, putting him or her in a ring with someone who has not got the competence to even challenge them, someone who cannot help them learn what a talented apprentice needs to know, is a complete waste of time. Eventually it is about money, a payday and as I know too well how hard it is to earn money in this world, would I deny that right to anyone?
I would though object - on the grounds that people can get hurt, seriously. On the grounds that sport is supposed to be competitive (would anyone be interested in seeing me in a 100 metre race with Usain Bolt? I very much doubt it. But some boxing contests are pretty much in the same area).
Let me finish this ramble and this rant with an example.
I was checking out last night a young Swedish boxer called Klara Svennsson. She fights professionally in Germany (the Swedes still appear to have hang-ups about professional boxing). She is obviously talented - 8 wins out of 8. I went as a matter of course to check out some of her opponents. One of them was a Hungarian lady called Alexandra Gorog, who has had 12 fights and lost 9 of them.
One thing that you begin to realise is that these "opponents" get around. The defeats have been, apart from in Germany, also in Slovakia, Italy and ..... Canada. It is a long way to go from Budapest to Ontario - to get stopped in one round!
Of her 3 victories Ms Gorog has recorded two of these against another young Hungarian lady called Gabriella Vicze. Time for a quick YouTube snippet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO-tQCl72HE
Ms Mastrodouka is a Greek lady resident in the UK. Useful prospect - 4 wins in 4 fights. Ms Vicze is strictly an "opponent". Current record - 3 wins in 25 fights. Of the 22 losses she has been stopped 8 times, which in percentage terms is not too bad. It is not quite Ontario, but it is a long way to go from Budapest to London to get knocked over inside 2 minutes.
You begin to wonder quite how long it will be before someone will look at this young lady's record and start asking questions about her health and future welfare. Yes, I know that she probably needs the money and her welfare will suffer in the long-term if she has no money.
At a certain point though the sport has to justify its existence. Fighters (male and female) of limited potential should eventually only be allowed to fight opponents with similar credentials. There is a name for people getting paid for being painfully drubbed - but "sport" is definitely not it!
Well I have mentioned it on this blog before, but family tradition is summat to do with it - my father would often let me stay up late when I was a child to watch it if there were fights televised.
Yes, but people can get hurt, seriously, even killed! I know, I did stop to reflect about this when the excellent Welsh bantamweight, Johnny Owen, died after being knocked out in a fight in Los Angeles in 1980. As he had never lost a fight in his career before that, it wouldn't have seemed like he needed protecting too much - he wasn't one of those journeymen who turned up for a payday and risked losing badly. The number of professional fighters around who have fought 50 to 60 times and have lost 70-80% of their fights, including being knocked out a few times - it cannot be good for their long-term health ....
I know, but they know the risks (OK that is a weak excuse). Pugilistica dementia is often a long-term result. And it does not just affect the perpetual losers of the ring. Leading contenders (see the leading 50s and 60s American contenders like Ralph Dupas and Kenny Lane for example). Curiously though there is no pattern. Some people who have taken many a dreadful hammering somehow keep their wits about them well into a surprisingly healthy old age - check out Max Schmeling who lived until he was 99 and was reasonably compos mentis to the end.
One of the growth areas in recent years has been women's boxing. Women generally being on average more intelligent than men, you would imagine that they would know the dangers, right?
One of Germany's sporting icons in recent years is the now retired Regina Halmich. She featured on many televised events, fought a total of 56 times, winning all but 2 of them, and must by any standards have made a more than decent income from the sport. The last time that I saw her being interviewed she sounded very much like she still had her wits about her.
There was a time though that the prospect of two women competing in a boxing ring would have raised more than the proverbial eyebrow. Nat Fleischer, the founder of "The Ring" magazine and the doyen of boxing writers would never even contemplate women's boxing, in fact I still recall one editorial that he wrote where he condemned the whole concept, even if all the appropriate feminine parts were duly and properly protected.
Times of course have changed since Mister Fleischer died in 1972. It is not so much a question of femininity, but is rather to do with athleticism. While the argument is not all that inspiring (shall we say?), there will those who will point out women shot putters and discus throwers (and these days weightlifters) and tell you that it is all about athleticism. A female shot putter isn't trying to be a fashion model.
And then there were the other combat sports that have boomed since the 1980s where women were even known to fight men ..... and occasionally even win! So why should boxing be any different?
A question of profile maybe? Boxing is not wrestling or even karate. It has values, its reputation and traditions garnered over the years. It has rules, it has safety standards. It has commissions to watch over all these things.
Some of these commissions need reminding occasionally though that they have responsibilities. A fighter who has become a virtual punchbag needs to have their licence withdrawn before they get seriously hurt. Not many people would put themselves in a boxing ring if they did not need the payday - at least not many people with losing records at least. In both these instances this applies equally to men and women.
One of the downsides of boxing over the years though has been the way the records of some fighters are "stuffed" with easy victories over "stiffs". This is also beginning to apply to both men and women. While accepting the fact that it is not always easy to get good opponents for a talented upcoming fighter, putting him or her in a ring with someone who has not got the competence to even challenge them, someone who cannot help them learn what a talented apprentice needs to know, is a complete waste of time. Eventually it is about money, a payday and as I know too well how hard it is to earn money in this world, would I deny that right to anyone?
I would though object - on the grounds that people can get hurt, seriously. On the grounds that sport is supposed to be competitive (would anyone be interested in seeing me in a 100 metre race with Usain Bolt? I very much doubt it. But some boxing contests are pretty much in the same area).
Let me finish this ramble and this rant with an example.
I was checking out last night a young Swedish boxer called Klara Svennsson. She fights professionally in Germany (the Swedes still appear to have hang-ups about professional boxing). She is obviously talented - 8 wins out of 8. I went as a matter of course to check out some of her opponents. One of them was a Hungarian lady called Alexandra Gorog, who has had 12 fights and lost 9 of them.
One thing that you begin to realise is that these "opponents" get around. The defeats have been, apart from in Germany, also in Slovakia, Italy and ..... Canada. It is a long way to go from Budapest to Ontario - to get stopped in one round!
Of her 3 victories Ms Gorog has recorded two of these against another young Hungarian lady called Gabriella Vicze. Time for a quick YouTube snippet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO-tQCl72HE
Ms Mastrodouka is a Greek lady resident in the UK. Useful prospect - 4 wins in 4 fights. Ms Vicze is strictly an "opponent". Current record - 3 wins in 25 fights. Of the 22 losses she has been stopped 8 times, which in percentage terms is not too bad. It is not quite Ontario, but it is a long way to go from Budapest to London to get knocked over inside 2 minutes.
You begin to wonder quite how long it will be before someone will look at this young lady's record and start asking questions about her health and future welfare. Yes, I know that she probably needs the money and her welfare will suffer in the long-term if she has no money.
At a certain point though the sport has to justify its existence. Fighters (male and female) of limited potential should eventually only be allowed to fight opponents with similar credentials. There is a name for people getting paid for being painfully drubbed - but "sport" is definitely not it!
Monday, 13 May 2013
On economic recovery, capitalism and democracy
A couple of poll questions from LinkedIn.com.
1. What do you think is slowing down economic recovery in the economy today?
I did not vote on this, but commented as follows.
Lack of investment in people rather than in profits. An obsession with short-term gain over long-term investment. Too much emphasis upon speculation and not enough on consistent growth over the long term. Outsourcing good jobs from the developed world keeping middle incomes lower than they ought to be, hence increasing unemployment and debt and cutting demand. An inability to understand that increased circulation of goods and services generates profits and leads to improvements in the markets and not vice versa (i.e. traditional conservative economics, not the neo-liberal nonsense with which we are plagued). Far too much emphasis on debt culture (both public and private). And too much power in the hands of too small a number of people.
2. Are capitalism and democracy at cross-purposes?
My answer was "yes". Of the 6 other people who replied, 3 agreed with me!
I did not comment upon LinkedIn but the the following point is worth noting:
With a high wage full employment economy, you can get growth - but it needs investment, it does not just happen. Growth though that works for the masses, not just the people at the top. I have been told by an endless stream of idiots in recent weeks that the abominable Margaret Thatcher raised the GDP of the UK substantially, and growth was very positive under her reign. To which the obvious reply was that it was a pity that at least half the population did not experience the benefits! An improved economy should not mean a massive increase in poverty and homelessness and unemployment and debt - the contrary in fact!
Compare the 1950s and 1960s where there was an across the board rise in the standard of living. It is not just how you grow the economy, it is how you spread the benefits of that growth that is important. Which is why I think that my two answers given above are consistent. It is not so much capitalism that is at fault, but the version of it that we are now using and have been for 30 years (and for readers in the UK, the Thatcherite thinking stated as above is also beloved by Nigel Farage of the English Xenophobe Party - so expect 30 more years of the same if you ever elect him and his xenophobic chums). This simply needs to change. Making capitalism inclusive is the key to its future. More of the broken model (see 2008) will improve only the standard of living of the already affluent few! To the detriment of everyone else!
1. What do you think is slowing down economic recovery in the economy today?
I did not vote on this, but commented as follows.
Lack of investment in people rather than in profits. An obsession with short-term gain over long-term investment. Too much emphasis upon speculation and not enough on consistent growth over the long term. Outsourcing good jobs from the developed world keeping middle incomes lower than they ought to be, hence increasing unemployment and debt and cutting demand. An inability to understand that increased circulation of goods and services generates profits and leads to improvements in the markets and not vice versa (i.e. traditional conservative economics, not the neo-liberal nonsense with which we are plagued). Far too much emphasis on debt culture (both public and private). And too much power in the hands of too small a number of people.
2. Are capitalism and democracy at cross-purposes?
My answer was "yes". Of the 6 other people who replied, 3 agreed with me!
I did not comment upon LinkedIn but the the following point is worth noting:
- Ask yourself why so much investment from the capitalist world is going into China. Workers have no right to object and working conditions, pollution and the like are not subject to the laws that have been passed in democratic countries. And then look at the pattern in other Asian countries. I have met more than a few people in Thailand who will tell you economic growth was far greater when it was a dictatorship. Look at South Korea, Indonesia usw - dictatorship was great for economic growth. Not that the majority of the people gained much from it. Their role was as often as not to be a source of very cheap labour. When people can argue, demand rights, and expect a larger slice of the cake (and get elected government parties to support them), then the fast money wielders of the capitalist world tend to take their money and run - to places like China! Where profits are easy to make and people cannot argue!
With a high wage full employment economy, you can get growth - but it needs investment, it does not just happen. Growth though that works for the masses, not just the people at the top. I have been told by an endless stream of idiots in recent weeks that the abominable Margaret Thatcher raised the GDP of the UK substantially, and growth was very positive under her reign. To which the obvious reply was that it was a pity that at least half the population did not experience the benefits! An improved economy should not mean a massive increase in poverty and homelessness and unemployment and debt - the contrary in fact!
Compare the 1950s and 1960s where there was an across the board rise in the standard of living. It is not just how you grow the economy, it is how you spread the benefits of that growth that is important. Which is why I think that my two answers given above are consistent. It is not so much capitalism that is at fault, but the version of it that we are now using and have been for 30 years (and for readers in the UK, the Thatcherite thinking stated as above is also beloved by Nigel Farage of the English Xenophobe Party - so expect 30 more years of the same if you ever elect him and his xenophobic chums). This simply needs to change. Making capitalism inclusive is the key to its future. More of the broken model (see 2008) will improve only the standard of living of the already affluent few! To the detriment of everyone else!
Sunday, 12 May 2013
An inspiring story of a female athlete defying the odds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16962799
and if the religious fanatics out there do not like it - tough!
and if the religious fanatics out there do not like it - tough!
Saturday, 11 May 2013
So what is wrong with having a job for life?
The abominable Margaret Thatcher was fond of making some extraordinarily dubious claims, which often conflicted with the real world in which most people live.
One of her famed pronouncements was about how she had managed to get rid of the "job for life".
Summat to be proud about?
Hardly.
My father got his first job at the age of 15. Apart from his 4 and a half years as a ground crew mechanic in the Royal Air Force in the Second World War he stayed with that company until he was forced to retire through ill-health at the age of 63. Given his propensity for figures, he would love to have stayed until he was 65, which would have meant a round 50 years of service.
In those days it was known as company loyalty. It was summat that companies appreciated from their employees. There was a mutual respect - the employee did the best work he/she could for the concern, the company in turn showed respect to its longstanding employees.
When my father died, several members of the management from that firm came to his funeral. Respected, and even loved, you might say.
He did not make a lot of money - he might have earned more by leaving and going elsewhere at some point, but his service and experience and loyalty were all valued. And as he got older, he became a point of reference for the younger employees in the company who could rely upon the knowledge that he could impart.
Did this mean that he became complacent as he got older? Not at all. Did this mean that as times and business practices changed, he could not adapt? Again this was not the case. He learned, he adapted.
And throughout he remained the good "company man".
And is getting rid of that the proverbial good thing? See the Thatcher comment above.
These days loyalty has become a one-way street. A company will expect absolute loyalty and commitment from its employees. Still. But it also will not hesitate to kick them out of the door the day that they become too expensive (which often means simply earning a living wage and little more). Why pay a hardworking knowledgeable man or woman in his/her forties when you can get someone in China to do it for less than one-tenth of the costs. Think of all the juicy profits you can make and how many millions you can make for yourself alone!
Is it any wonder why this 1% / 99% split has become so pronounced. Is it any wonder that people in the middle are seeing their lifestyles threatened and the people at the bottom can see no way out?
Before the 2008 financial crash I remember seeing a statistic indicating that the number of people in the UK who were unemployed and over 50 was twice that in percentage terms of people under 50 (that has been skewed somewhat by the number of people under 25 who cannot find jobs since the crash, but the statistics for people over 50 remain, to say the least, grim!).
The ridiculous thing is that a lot of older workers will bring skill, talent and experience to any role (see above). There is an abundance of talent going to waste because of the high unemployment to which they are subject. And getting rid of job security for older workers causes more of them to be fired. The statistics simply do not lie!
In certain countries there are attempts to rectify the problem. The German government offers incentives to employers who will take on older workers. Recently advertisements have started appearing upon billboards here about how important are the skills and attitude that older workers can bring to companies.
How successful this project and its like elsewhere will be I would not like to guess. But what I do know is that any pride taken by any politician in that they succeeded in getting rid of the "job for life" should be treated with the contempt that it deserves!
One of her famed pronouncements was about how she had managed to get rid of the "job for life".
Summat to be proud about?
Hardly.
My father got his first job at the age of 15. Apart from his 4 and a half years as a ground crew mechanic in the Royal Air Force in the Second World War he stayed with that company until he was forced to retire through ill-health at the age of 63. Given his propensity for figures, he would love to have stayed until he was 65, which would have meant a round 50 years of service.
In those days it was known as company loyalty. It was summat that companies appreciated from their employees. There was a mutual respect - the employee did the best work he/she could for the concern, the company in turn showed respect to its longstanding employees.
When my father died, several members of the management from that firm came to his funeral. Respected, and even loved, you might say.
He did not make a lot of money - he might have earned more by leaving and going elsewhere at some point, but his service and experience and loyalty were all valued. And as he got older, he became a point of reference for the younger employees in the company who could rely upon the knowledge that he could impart.
Did this mean that he became complacent as he got older? Not at all. Did this mean that as times and business practices changed, he could not adapt? Again this was not the case. He learned, he adapted.
And throughout he remained the good "company man".
And is getting rid of that the proverbial good thing? See the Thatcher comment above.
These days loyalty has become a one-way street. A company will expect absolute loyalty and commitment from its employees. Still. But it also will not hesitate to kick them out of the door the day that they become too expensive (which often means simply earning a living wage and little more). Why pay a hardworking knowledgeable man or woman in his/her forties when you can get someone in China to do it for less than one-tenth of the costs. Think of all the juicy profits you can make and how many millions you can make for yourself alone!
Is it any wonder why this 1% / 99% split has become so pronounced. Is it any wonder that people in the middle are seeing their lifestyles threatened and the people at the bottom can see no way out?
Before the 2008 financial crash I remember seeing a statistic indicating that the number of people in the UK who were unemployed and over 50 was twice that in percentage terms of people under 50 (that has been skewed somewhat by the number of people under 25 who cannot find jobs since the crash, but the statistics for people over 50 remain, to say the least, grim!).
The ridiculous thing is that a lot of older workers will bring skill, talent and experience to any role (see above). There is an abundance of talent going to waste because of the high unemployment to which they are subject. And getting rid of job security for older workers causes more of them to be fired. The statistics simply do not lie!
In certain countries there are attempts to rectify the problem. The German government offers incentives to employers who will take on older workers. Recently advertisements have started appearing upon billboards here about how important are the skills and attitude that older workers can bring to companies.
How successful this project and its like elsewhere will be I would not like to guess. But what I do know is that any pride taken by any politician in that they succeeded in getting rid of the "job for life" should be treated with the contempt that it deserves!
Thursday, 9 May 2013
Exercises in democracy, Stresemann and a defence of the Weimar Republic, and why always to be on your guard
Exercises in democracy
In 1871 following the Franco-Prussian War, the French Third Republic came into existence. The unloved bastard child of the collapsed Second Empire of Louis Napoleon and an excruciating defeat in a short war where the French were humiliated as seemingly never before in history - or at least since the Middle Ages.
The republic, with the overthrow of all of the three branches of the French monarchy (Bourbon, Orléanist and upstart Napoleonic - yes I know that the Bonapartes were a completely different issue and not "royal" in the traditional sense!) did not arise at the will and demand of the public. It got there almost by accident for lack of demand for anything else. That it lasted for some 70 years was some achievement (the First Empire and the Second Empire lasted less than 20, so did the Orléanist monarchy of Louis-Philippe). These were times of turmoil economically, the rise of all sorts of political movements (including the arrival of the French Communist Party as part of a government coalition in the 1930s), a major world war, the rise and start to fall of the French overseas Empire, the advent of universal public education and universal suffrage.
Democratic throughout, it survived - almost in spite of itself. Few historians seem to have a good word for it, De Gaulle despised it apparently ..... But it managed to hold together despite everything.
Which says something.
In fact it took the Nazi invasion in 1940 to cause its eventually demise. In a curious circle, one German occupation brought about its creation, another its destruction.
For those who wish to see the installation of democracy as a perfect work of political art should revisit the French Third Republic some time though - if only to understand that text books do not always get it right!
Stresemann and a defence of the Weimar Republic
As with France in 1871, so with Germany in 1919. Another unloved bastard child falling out of an unsuccessful war bed, the Weimar Republic was the product of the failure of its parents. Or so it appears, or so history will have you believe.
The French had dallied with republics before (maybe the UK ought to .....). Germany had become a monarchy in 1871 with the inclusion of a load of smaller states (all monarchies I believe) and had no track record of owt else. There had been calls for a republic, but mainly from voices like Karl Marx who were "revolutionary". That Germany in 1919 had nowhere else to turn .....
A lot of people found accepting defeat, militarily, in 1918 more than they could stomach, and anyone who "colluded" in the admittedly awful Treaty of Versailles - a series of huge mistakes, no matter how you choose to look at it - soon found out that the ultranationalists had never forgotten nor forgiven the acceptance of defeat.
In the circumstances whoever came to power with the huge bills from Versailles to pay and an element of violent dissidents intent on their destruction, would have had very serious problems.
Those taking a simplistic look at the Weimar Republic have the unfortunate habit of looking at the early years and the mass inflation that hit hard in 1923, or its demise with the Nazis in the Reichstag in 1933. Check out though the period between 1924 and the middle of 1929 at least and the picture of Germany under the Weimar Republic was not in fact all that bad.
Much of the credit for that goes to a rather straight-laced Protestant from Berlin called Gustav Stresemann. A conservative, Stresemann had been the architect of the policy that brought the period of mass inflation to an end. He adopted a policy, much beloved of conservatives elsewhere to this day - namely if you do not want inflation, you do not print money. This proved very painful in the short-term, but provided the basis of Germany's recovery in the second half of the decade. Then as Foreign Minister in various coalition governments, he embarked upon re-establishing Germany's reputation as a nation that could be a reliable friend, and worked on treaties not to remove Germany's requirement to repay the massive war damages inflicted at Versailles, but to change the payment schedules so that they were more realistically achievable.
By 1929 the economy was on the way to recovery, unemployment at 8% was too high but had been a lot worse, and many of the other things for which the country became famous (think of the Roaring Twenties in Berlin - seen as decadent in the rest of the country but anyway - the growth in importance in German cinema with the likes of Lang and Pabst usw) helped present a more positive view to the world and provided a gradually improving lifestyle for the populace.
Stresemann himself had guided the German economy into a position where it could enjoy trade with the booming US economy, thanks to various treaty agreements that had been signed. As he himself realised though, the potential dependence was too great, and if anything went wrong .....
In October 1929 the Weimar Republic suffered two massive blows from which it would never recover .... in a period of 27 days. On the 3rd of the month Stresemann died suddenly following a heart attack. He was only 51. On the 29th of the month came the Wall Street Crash. All European countries were to feel the impact, but Germany was particularly vulnerable.
Surviving Versailles, surviving the mass inflation of 1923 - these had been possible. Surviving the 1929 crash? It is one of those great historical questions. If Stresemann had not died when he did, would he have helped find the answer - an answer that nobody else in Europe managed upon a sustained basis (even if France, under the later notorious Pierre Laval, did manage to fend off the worse for a short time in the early 30s - interestingly by adopting protectionism!)? We will never know. But with Stresemann's death and the global financial crisis, the last years of the Weimar Republic were painful and the prelude to the historical disaster that was Hitler and the Nazis.
To note on Stresemann - he was a conservative, but a pragmatic one. He worked in coalition governments with members of other parties "for the national good". In these days of polarisation there should be lessons to learn from that.
Why always to be on your guard
In 1928 (see above) Germany was recovering. Economic good times might well have been round the corner. In the Reichstag elections of 1928 a small Bavarian party called the NSDAP earned 2.6%. of the vote. Their agenda was extreme, the stab-in-the-back, "blame the Jews", "the Bolsheviks are everywhere" policies that nobody could take that seriously in a sophisticated country like Germany. Come the economic crash of 1929, they became the biggest force in German politics without ever disguising who they were and what they would do. From nowhere to dictatorship in 5 years!
I have said it before, and it is worth repeating until we are blue in the face. In economically difficult times, the orthodox political and economic solutions look like they have failed, the mainstream political parties who embrace those solutions look like they have no answers. And then?
There is a tendency to run to extremes in times like that (and these following the global crash of 2008). A political vacuum occurs and the purveyors and pedlars of easy answers leap into the space. Chronic nationalism has its appeal. We did nowt wrong, it's all the disgusting foreigners usw. Actually analysing what went wrong, the cause and the effect, is often hidden by this series of irrelevant theories (and just plain mistaken logic). See what is happening in the political vacuum across Europe at the moment and you get more and more of this. The FN could become the biggest party in France before long. Its counterpart in the UK, the English Xenophobe Party, is making rapid strides forward where popular support is concerned.
The fact that the mainstream parties have fouled up and become complacent or incompetent does not mean that these alternatives offer in any way potential improvement. In fact they represent the unleashing of forces that are potentially dangerous and destructive. The lessons of the 1930s need not and should not be ignored. That said the mainstream parties need to unravel the maelstrom that they and their friends in the financial markets unleashed upon the masses with the attendant hopelessness and increasing poverty that is affecting much of the continent (including the UK, let it be said).
It needs action, not political deadlock. And it needs the reestablishment of hope as quickly as possible. Reversion to nationalism, and the belief that the markets can fix the problem (the people who caused the mess in the first place!!!!) though must be seen for the "solutions" that they are. Meanwhile the ghosts of the 1930s are beginning to wander round in ever-increasing numbers in their spectral brown shirts (though pin-striped suits often serve as cover). It needs a positive response and a call to action before these ghosts become reality again bringing with them the obvious consequences.
In 1871 following the Franco-Prussian War, the French Third Republic came into existence. The unloved bastard child of the collapsed Second Empire of Louis Napoleon and an excruciating defeat in a short war where the French were humiliated as seemingly never before in history - or at least since the Middle Ages.
The republic, with the overthrow of all of the three branches of the French monarchy (Bourbon, Orléanist and upstart Napoleonic - yes I know that the Bonapartes were a completely different issue and not "royal" in the traditional sense!) did not arise at the will and demand of the public. It got there almost by accident for lack of demand for anything else. That it lasted for some 70 years was some achievement (the First Empire and the Second Empire lasted less than 20, so did the Orléanist monarchy of Louis-Philippe). These were times of turmoil economically, the rise of all sorts of political movements (including the arrival of the French Communist Party as part of a government coalition in the 1930s), a major world war, the rise and start to fall of the French overseas Empire, the advent of universal public education and universal suffrage.
Democratic throughout, it survived - almost in spite of itself. Few historians seem to have a good word for it, De Gaulle despised it apparently ..... But it managed to hold together despite everything.
Which says something.
In fact it took the Nazi invasion in 1940 to cause its eventually demise. In a curious circle, one German occupation brought about its creation, another its destruction.
For those who wish to see the installation of democracy as a perfect work of political art should revisit the French Third Republic some time though - if only to understand that text books do not always get it right!
Stresemann and a defence of the Weimar Republic
As with France in 1871, so with Germany in 1919. Another unloved bastard child falling out of an unsuccessful war bed, the Weimar Republic was the product of the failure of its parents. Or so it appears, or so history will have you believe.
The French had dallied with republics before (maybe the UK ought to .....). Germany had become a monarchy in 1871 with the inclusion of a load of smaller states (all monarchies I believe) and had no track record of owt else. There had been calls for a republic, but mainly from voices like Karl Marx who were "revolutionary". That Germany in 1919 had nowhere else to turn .....
A lot of people found accepting defeat, militarily, in 1918 more than they could stomach, and anyone who "colluded" in the admittedly awful Treaty of Versailles - a series of huge mistakes, no matter how you choose to look at it - soon found out that the ultranationalists had never forgotten nor forgiven the acceptance of defeat.
In the circumstances whoever came to power with the huge bills from Versailles to pay and an element of violent dissidents intent on their destruction, would have had very serious problems.
Those taking a simplistic look at the Weimar Republic have the unfortunate habit of looking at the early years and the mass inflation that hit hard in 1923, or its demise with the Nazis in the Reichstag in 1933. Check out though the period between 1924 and the middle of 1929 at least and the picture of Germany under the Weimar Republic was not in fact all that bad.
Much of the credit for that goes to a rather straight-laced Protestant from Berlin called Gustav Stresemann. A conservative, Stresemann had been the architect of the policy that brought the period of mass inflation to an end. He adopted a policy, much beloved of conservatives elsewhere to this day - namely if you do not want inflation, you do not print money. This proved very painful in the short-term, but provided the basis of Germany's recovery in the second half of the decade. Then as Foreign Minister in various coalition governments, he embarked upon re-establishing Germany's reputation as a nation that could be a reliable friend, and worked on treaties not to remove Germany's requirement to repay the massive war damages inflicted at Versailles, but to change the payment schedules so that they were more realistically achievable.
By 1929 the economy was on the way to recovery, unemployment at 8% was too high but had been a lot worse, and many of the other things for which the country became famous (think of the Roaring Twenties in Berlin - seen as decadent in the rest of the country but anyway - the growth in importance in German cinema with the likes of Lang and Pabst usw) helped present a more positive view to the world and provided a gradually improving lifestyle for the populace.
Stresemann himself had guided the German economy into a position where it could enjoy trade with the booming US economy, thanks to various treaty agreements that had been signed. As he himself realised though, the potential dependence was too great, and if anything went wrong .....
In October 1929 the Weimar Republic suffered two massive blows from which it would never recover .... in a period of 27 days. On the 3rd of the month Stresemann died suddenly following a heart attack. He was only 51. On the 29th of the month came the Wall Street Crash. All European countries were to feel the impact, but Germany was particularly vulnerable.
Surviving Versailles, surviving the mass inflation of 1923 - these had been possible. Surviving the 1929 crash? It is one of those great historical questions. If Stresemann had not died when he did, would he have helped find the answer - an answer that nobody else in Europe managed upon a sustained basis (even if France, under the later notorious Pierre Laval, did manage to fend off the worse for a short time in the early 30s - interestingly by adopting protectionism!)? We will never know. But with Stresemann's death and the global financial crisis, the last years of the Weimar Republic were painful and the prelude to the historical disaster that was Hitler and the Nazis.
To note on Stresemann - he was a conservative, but a pragmatic one. He worked in coalition governments with members of other parties "for the national good". In these days of polarisation there should be lessons to learn from that.
Why always to be on your guard
In 1928 (see above) Germany was recovering. Economic good times might well have been round the corner. In the Reichstag elections of 1928 a small Bavarian party called the NSDAP earned 2.6%. of the vote. Their agenda was extreme, the stab-in-the-back, "blame the Jews", "the Bolsheviks are everywhere" policies that nobody could take that seriously in a sophisticated country like Germany. Come the economic crash of 1929, they became the biggest force in German politics without ever disguising who they were and what they would do. From nowhere to dictatorship in 5 years!
I have said it before, and it is worth repeating until we are blue in the face. In economically difficult times, the orthodox political and economic solutions look like they have failed, the mainstream political parties who embrace those solutions look like they have no answers. And then?
There is a tendency to run to extremes in times like that (and these following the global crash of 2008). A political vacuum occurs and the purveyors and pedlars of easy answers leap into the space. Chronic nationalism has its appeal. We did nowt wrong, it's all the disgusting foreigners usw. Actually analysing what went wrong, the cause and the effect, is often hidden by this series of irrelevant theories (and just plain mistaken logic). See what is happening in the political vacuum across Europe at the moment and you get more and more of this. The FN could become the biggest party in France before long. Its counterpart in the UK, the English Xenophobe Party, is making rapid strides forward where popular support is concerned.
The fact that the mainstream parties have fouled up and become complacent or incompetent does not mean that these alternatives offer in any way potential improvement. In fact they represent the unleashing of forces that are potentially dangerous and destructive. The lessons of the 1930s need not and should not be ignored. That said the mainstream parties need to unravel the maelstrom that they and their friends in the financial markets unleashed upon the masses with the attendant hopelessness and increasing poverty that is affecting much of the continent (including the UK, let it be said).
It needs action, not political deadlock. And it needs the reestablishment of hope as quickly as possible. Reversion to nationalism, and the belief that the markets can fix the problem (the people who caused the mess in the first place!!!!) though must be seen for the "solutions" that they are. Meanwhile the ghosts of the 1930s are beginning to wander round in ever-increasing numbers in their spectral brown shirts (though pin-striped suits often serve as cover). It needs a positive response and a call to action before these ghosts become reality again bringing with them the obvious consequences.
Saturday, 4 May 2013
John Lennon's Imagine
First verse - dedicated to fanatical believers in religion everywhere
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Second verse dedicated to the UKIP (also known as the EXP) and similar political parties elsewhere, and fundamentalist believers again .....
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
Chorus - dedicated to myself and people like me and those who will still be alive long after I have perished
You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Third verse - dedicated to conservatives the world over
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world
Chorus - see above
You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Second verse dedicated to the UKIP (also known as the EXP) and similar political parties elsewhere, and fundamentalist believers again .....
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
Chorus - dedicated to myself and people like me and those who will still be alive long after I have perished
You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Third verse - dedicated to conservatives the world over
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world
Chorus - see above
You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)