I have been a member of LinkedIn.com for a few years now.
Once or twice it has threatened to provide me with the job opportunity for which I have been looking, and with some adaptation it could be extremely useful.
I belong to them as a "basic member". That means I get a number of services which are available free of charge. I could consider having a "premium service" membership which would offer me more possibilities.
Once in a while they offer me a month's free "premium" membership. I was often tempted to try it and finally did. The only problem being that they wanted it confirming with a credit card (think Visa or Mastercard) / charge card (think American Express).
Slight problem at this point - I do not have either! I had an Amex card until 2010 - previously I had my bank account still in the Netherlands and the Amex card was also issued in the Netherlands. Once I finally switched everything to Germany I saw no point in having a charge card - especially given my other financial difficulties.
I have not had credit cards like Visa and Mastercard for over 12 years, and I am glad to do without them. You can just as easily use your bank card - free! - as is common practice in Germany to pay for goods straightaway. If you do not want to pay for them straightaway, my advice is to do without the goods entirely. It is summat of a fool's paradise to pay interest charges, particularly at the massive rip-off rate charged by the credit card companies, as well as the cost of the article that you want, and to have to pay an annual subscription fee for the card as well.
Amex of course, as a charge card, does not charge interest, although an annual fee is still expected. But with Visa and Mastercard, if you check back over the years just what you have paid in interest charges and then think of what you could have done with that money if it hadn't been wasted like that? If your annual interest charges were 200 Euro / dollars / pounds usw - you could have bought goods to that amount. Or put it in a savings account and got interest on it yourself!
I personally learned this the hard way years ago, although part of it was almost forced upon you as during the abominable Thatcher years it was nearly impossible to be able to pay even your basic bills with the money you had available. The start of the debt dependence which has overtaken the UK to such an extent that personal debt is now at least as serious a problem as government debt!
In Germany credit cards are much rarer than in many other countries. Debt culture is not encouraged to the same extent, although its presence can be felt still using more traditional loans and the like.
Not having a credit card can be a confounded nuisance when dealing with international companies based outside Germany though - Internet organisations like LinkedIn for example (I can quote several others of encountering this problem). With the limited online purchases that I do make in Germany I use my bank card and make a direct transfer, but once you want to cross borders it is another matter.
And not having a credit / charge card also draws the strange response from people outside Germany - "How do you live without one?".
Answer - "quite easily"! If I were earning more and wanted to do more with my life, I could still live like this. And think of all the rip-off interest charges that I could manage to avoid as well. I could actually start to invest with that money - in a small way at least!
Saturday, 29 June 2013
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Emotions, making decisions, children, adolescents and adults
NOT RECOMMENDED READING FOR ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18. PLEASE GO ELSEWHERE IF YOU ARE NOT AN ADULT!
Waking up at half past five is hardly unusual for me. Waking up after a chaotic load of nonsense from the dream world that could be instantly forgotten - ditto. And waking up totally alert, rational and ready to face the challenges of the day?
No problem.
My wife was on the afternoon/evening shift yesterday and got home close to midnight, so that she was making all the noises emanating from a peaceful sleep should not be surprising.
After several hectic days today is busy but all admin - producing and sending off invoices, chasing up banks, trying to sort out problems on Paypal, building a communal voodoo doll for all the ultraconservative parties in Europe and their neo-Fascist friends and sticking the largest pins I can find in it .....
So at 0530 nowt much to do except check the baseball results on mlb.com. The Red Sox had the first of two eminently winnable games against the Rockies last night. Only problem with me being a bad loser - would I get emotional if I had found out that they had lost?
Ah well - 11-4 win, so I cannot comment really. Emotions firmly in check, watched the highlights, read the game report, suitably content (an emotion, but not an extravagant one) checked email for anything interesting (is boredom an emotion - even the spam is getting more boring than irritating, what at my age would I do with a member expanded to an unreal size?), and headed off back to bed, but not to sleep, at 0620.
Emotions have their place as long as you do not take decisions based upon them (not that politicians seem to understand that - there is more bad legislation based upon raw emotions these days than I would care to discuss. Sadly).
My wife was still snoozing peacefully. After 10 minutes or so while still asleep, she reached her hand across my chest, placed her head on my shoulder - definitely a "feel good" moment for both of us. Remember the old Paul Anka song "Put Your Head On My Shoulder"? That sort of moment really.
On the subject of Paul Anka, he was in Toronto in 1975 at the same time that I was. I was either at the start or the end of my "see the whole of North America in 21 days" trip. He was performing at one of a series of concerts. According to the press (I was not at the concert) he told the audience how good it was to be "home" (= Canada). Interesting he went back to California (or was it Nevada) afterwards. Nothing like patriotism to warm up most people's emotional responses though - well maybe not in my case, but with most people ....
Anyway apart from my life going quiet, I haven't noticed much that has roused Germany to excitement or turmoil in the past couple of weeks. The major headline yesterday in the national tabloid "Bild" was about some celebrity getting married - equals nowt much happening.
Obama was here last week of of course. Ever the great orator, it sounded all like 2008 again. "Action not words", you feel (emotion!) like telling him occasionally, but at least he hasn't started another unnecessary war or carried out policies designed to bring the world economy crashing down (unlike his predecessor, and maybe his successor - the opposing party in the US seems to be more obsessed with controlling women's bodies than owt else these days which doesn't augur well - their answer to economic problems meanwhile seems to based upon everything which caused the crisis in 2008), so you have to happy with minimal success rather than grotesque failure.
So work apart, your mind drifts back to the UK and the scandals involving teachers and their pupils/students.
I have read a lot of puerile gunge on this subject on the past few days, often from people who should know better. Try asking the people who know. At this point I was going to produce a link from YouTube, but fume, (irritated, gets angry, uncontrollable emotions take over .....), fume - I get one of those copyright prevents us usw usw messages, so no link.
Instead, from 1980, Police - "Don't Stand So Close To Me" - lyrics:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/dont-stand-so-close-to-me-lyrics-the-police.html
The lyrics are the important thing really. Musically the original version of the song is brilliant, I was never too keen on the remake.
In the light of the Forrest trial last week, I have, I repeat, read so much gunge on this subject it passes all credibility. Sting (as Gordon Sumner) started out adult life as a teacher before becoming a singer. The song is not autobiographical (he taught a younger age range than this anyway), but acute observation is applied in certain instances.
You would think to read the media outlets on the subject that there were all these young male teachers out there wickedly salivating like the crummy paedophiles they are over the innocent bodies of the poor vulnerable children (primarily female, but Gay is also possible) who wouldn't know how to resist.
WRONG! TOTALLY WRONG! ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
Digression: I have never heard of a single instance of this happening in Germany incidentally - they must be missing summat - end of digression.
As in the words of the Police song above "Young teacher, the subject of schoolgirl fantasy". As in the Forrest case with the girl who cannot now be named but whose identity is so widely know it is hardly worth following the directive not to mention it (Megan ******) - it often, even usually starts with a schoolgirl crush, budding hormonal growth usw. The teacher is often not the one who is doing the salivating - the reverse is the case.
As I have mentioned in the past on this blog, I was, as a young teacher in the 1970s (and for benefit of the UK tabloid press - this phenomenon of teenage kids getting involved with their teachers is not new or summat that has only started in the past few years, it has been around a very long time!) propositioned by schoolgirls 3 times. Average age 14 years and 7 months. I was not that handsome, I was aloof, shy, distant, not that friendly and prone to be a disciplinarian. And yet I was propositioned, quite seriously, three times! Not sure whether the more amusing "come back in 10 years time when you're old enough" was used once, but the standard reply was along the lines: "Go away and don't be so silly!".
Now if this happened to me, then it must have happened to a lot of guys who were a lot more attractive physically and certainly more personally appealing than I was (in those days anyway). I am sure that this must have happened many times. I am also certain that in over 99% of cases an immediate refusal was forthcoming! Schoolgirl crush immediately crushed (some persistent wretches were prone to return, see later)! In the words of the above song: "sometimes it's not so easy to be the teacher's pet"!
There are exceptions to the rule. There are the occasional bad apples. There was the case of the so-called "Salford stallion", Christopher Drake, who was involved with not one girl, like Forrest, but three. Eventually he was caught after an incident at his upmarket apartment block where he was "entertaining" one of the girls when another of his teenage "acquaintances" (my, we are being cutely polite with the terminology here!), threw a very noisy temper tantrum based upon jealousy, the police were called and the rest is history. Check out his nickname on google if you really want the sordid details. It makes for pretty atrocious reading.
And you had heard of the Forrest case but not the case of the "Salford stallion"? This is a bit how the UK media works, my friends - Drake was in the North of England, so it is at best regional parochialism (unless it involves soccer), Forrest was in South of England, so of course it is not merely national, but international news of massive importance (the BBC to their credit manage to avoid that sort of thinking, but it is IMHO the exception that proves the rule!).
Move on.
This brings me to one other point that has been bothering me all week. Forrest was jailed for six years this week (interestingly the same term that Drake got. I hate to think how ex-teachers get treated in jail, but I digress). He was described in the press as a "paedophile".
Actually, technically, he isn't. He is an ephebophiliac. As is Drake. As are most of the bad apples caught having sex with underage teenage girls.
The differentiation is, or ought to be, significant.
Paedophilia is in essence having sex with a prepubescent child. The child is not capable of participating in the exercise, and the act is to all and intents and purposes a thoroughly disgusting form of rape.
Ephebophilia is having sex with a teenage girl or boy who is not at the legal age of consent, but is capable of participating in the act. Still undesirable and not recommended, and still worthy of the individual being locked up. But a lot more complex situations arise from it. In a country where 40% of teenagers below the age of consent are apparently sexually active according to a survey a few years ago - you see the problems (in Germany that figure stands at a grotesquely high 25% in the same survey, so imagine 2 in every 5 teenage girls between 13 & 15 in the UK ....).
There has been a lot of gunge this week in the press about "vulnerable" teenage kids, or kids at a "vulnerable" age. The problem being that this makes all of them sound like passive recipients of unfortunate actions, when they are often nothing of the kind. Many kids of 14 and 15 of both sexes are already only too keen to show off their prowess, boast of their reputations in this respect usw. Vulnerable only affects the peer group members that they impress.
It is far too early, they are far too young usw? I agree actually. The facts of the matter is though that a lot of kids do get involved in this type of activity very early. This is again not new. I can quote friends back in the early 1960s who were already indulging in this sort of behaviour at the age of 14. And well-educated kids from good homes with caring parents as well. And as for listening to their parents who tell them "no" - see my item on "Cool" the other day. Do you really listen to your parents or your peer group?
And so when the 14-year-old girl with the schoolgirl crush and an amount of sexual experience sets her eyes on the young male teacher ..... Is the "child" really vulnerable? Or is the teacher possibly vulnerable, if he lacks the will-power to say "no"?
In most instances - see above - it is not a problem. But see Sting's song and see the problems involved. Back in 1980 after I moved to Manchester, I read one article in the local press of a young male teacher of 26 who was jailed for one year for one "indulgence" with one female 14-year-old pupil. Apparently she had pestered him and pestered him for weeks, and always been told "no". Finally for some reason he finally gave way. Why is difficult to understand, but with these persistent wretches .....
The sad part of the story is apparently that she hated the experience and went home and told her parents who complained to both the police and the school.
I cannot imagine what fascination getting involved with kids of that age would have for an adult anyway. That is not just down to my age now incidentally - it merely repeats what I thought some 40 years ago. For those who do not think like that though, I would remind them that they are professionals, they have the good name of their profession to consider, and would also note the two examples quoted on here as to what can happen if you do follow any ridiculous fantasy (and I do not think six years in jail is a worthwhile reward for any such misconduct).
Meaning leave the fantasies to the kids - and make sure that they stay just that and don't become anything else. In the long-term it is probably in their interest that they stay just that as well.
Waking up at half past five is hardly unusual for me. Waking up after a chaotic load of nonsense from the dream world that could be instantly forgotten - ditto. And waking up totally alert, rational and ready to face the challenges of the day?
No problem.
My wife was on the afternoon/evening shift yesterday and got home close to midnight, so that she was making all the noises emanating from a peaceful sleep should not be surprising.
After several hectic days today is busy but all admin - producing and sending off invoices, chasing up banks, trying to sort out problems on Paypal, building a communal voodoo doll for all the ultraconservative parties in Europe and their neo-Fascist friends and sticking the largest pins I can find in it .....
So at 0530 nowt much to do except check the baseball results on mlb.com. The Red Sox had the first of two eminently winnable games against the Rockies last night. Only problem with me being a bad loser - would I get emotional if I had found out that they had lost?
Ah well - 11-4 win, so I cannot comment really. Emotions firmly in check, watched the highlights, read the game report, suitably content (an emotion, but not an extravagant one) checked email for anything interesting (is boredom an emotion - even the spam is getting more boring than irritating, what at my age would I do with a member expanded to an unreal size?), and headed off back to bed, but not to sleep, at 0620.
Emotions have their place as long as you do not take decisions based upon them (not that politicians seem to understand that - there is more bad legislation based upon raw emotions these days than I would care to discuss. Sadly).
My wife was still snoozing peacefully. After 10 minutes or so while still asleep, she reached her hand across my chest, placed her head on my shoulder - definitely a "feel good" moment for both of us. Remember the old Paul Anka song "Put Your Head On My Shoulder"? That sort of moment really.
On the subject of Paul Anka, he was in Toronto in 1975 at the same time that I was. I was either at the start or the end of my "see the whole of North America in 21 days" trip. He was performing at one of a series of concerts. According to the press (I was not at the concert) he told the audience how good it was to be "home" (= Canada). Interesting he went back to California (or was it Nevada) afterwards. Nothing like patriotism to warm up most people's emotional responses though - well maybe not in my case, but with most people ....
Anyway apart from my life going quiet, I haven't noticed much that has roused Germany to excitement or turmoil in the past couple of weeks. The major headline yesterday in the national tabloid "Bild" was about some celebrity getting married - equals nowt much happening.
Obama was here last week of of course. Ever the great orator, it sounded all like 2008 again. "Action not words", you feel (emotion!) like telling him occasionally, but at least he hasn't started another unnecessary war or carried out policies designed to bring the world economy crashing down (unlike his predecessor, and maybe his successor - the opposing party in the US seems to be more obsessed with controlling women's bodies than owt else these days which doesn't augur well - their answer to economic problems meanwhile seems to based upon everything which caused the crisis in 2008), so you have to happy with minimal success rather than grotesque failure.
So work apart, your mind drifts back to the UK and the scandals involving teachers and their pupils/students.
I have read a lot of puerile gunge on this subject on the past few days, often from people who should know better. Try asking the people who know. At this point I was going to produce a link from YouTube, but fume, (irritated, gets angry, uncontrollable emotions take over .....), fume - I get one of those copyright prevents us usw usw messages, so no link.
Instead, from 1980, Police - "Don't Stand So Close To Me" - lyrics:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/dont-stand-so-close-to-me-lyrics-the-police.html
The lyrics are the important thing really. Musically the original version of the song is brilliant, I was never too keen on the remake.
In the light of the Forrest trial last week, I have, I repeat, read so much gunge on this subject it passes all credibility. Sting (as Gordon Sumner) started out adult life as a teacher before becoming a singer. The song is not autobiographical (he taught a younger age range than this anyway), but acute observation is applied in certain instances.
You would think to read the media outlets on the subject that there were all these young male teachers out there wickedly salivating like the crummy paedophiles they are over the innocent bodies of the poor vulnerable children (primarily female, but Gay is also possible) who wouldn't know how to resist.
WRONG! TOTALLY WRONG! ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
Digression: I have never heard of a single instance of this happening in Germany incidentally - they must be missing summat - end of digression.
As in the words of the Police song above "Young teacher, the subject of schoolgirl fantasy". As in the Forrest case with the girl who cannot now be named but whose identity is so widely know it is hardly worth following the directive not to mention it (Megan ******) - it often, even usually starts with a schoolgirl crush, budding hormonal growth usw. The teacher is often not the one who is doing the salivating - the reverse is the case.
As I have mentioned in the past on this blog, I was, as a young teacher in the 1970s (and for benefit of the UK tabloid press - this phenomenon of teenage kids getting involved with their teachers is not new or summat that has only started in the past few years, it has been around a very long time!) propositioned by schoolgirls 3 times. Average age 14 years and 7 months. I was not that handsome, I was aloof, shy, distant, not that friendly and prone to be a disciplinarian. And yet I was propositioned, quite seriously, three times! Not sure whether the more amusing "come back in 10 years time when you're old enough" was used once, but the standard reply was along the lines: "Go away and don't be so silly!".
Now if this happened to me, then it must have happened to a lot of guys who were a lot more attractive physically and certainly more personally appealing than I was (in those days anyway). I am sure that this must have happened many times. I am also certain that in over 99% of cases an immediate refusal was forthcoming! Schoolgirl crush immediately crushed (some persistent wretches were prone to return, see later)! In the words of the above song: "sometimes it's not so easy to be the teacher's pet"!
There are exceptions to the rule. There are the occasional bad apples. There was the case of the so-called "Salford stallion", Christopher Drake, who was involved with not one girl, like Forrest, but three. Eventually he was caught after an incident at his upmarket apartment block where he was "entertaining" one of the girls when another of his teenage "acquaintances" (my, we are being cutely polite with the terminology here!), threw a very noisy temper tantrum based upon jealousy, the police were called and the rest is history. Check out his nickname on google if you really want the sordid details. It makes for pretty atrocious reading.
And you had heard of the Forrest case but not the case of the "Salford stallion"? This is a bit how the UK media works, my friends - Drake was in the North of England, so it is at best regional parochialism (unless it involves soccer), Forrest was in South of England, so of course it is not merely national, but international news of massive importance (the BBC to their credit manage to avoid that sort of thinking, but it is IMHO the exception that proves the rule!).
Move on.
This brings me to one other point that has been bothering me all week. Forrest was jailed for six years this week (interestingly the same term that Drake got. I hate to think how ex-teachers get treated in jail, but I digress). He was described in the press as a "paedophile".
Actually, technically, he isn't. He is an ephebophiliac. As is Drake. As are most of the bad apples caught having sex with underage teenage girls.
The differentiation is, or ought to be, significant.
Paedophilia is in essence having sex with a prepubescent child. The child is not capable of participating in the exercise, and the act is to all and intents and purposes a thoroughly disgusting form of rape.
Ephebophilia is having sex with a teenage girl or boy who is not at the legal age of consent, but is capable of participating in the act. Still undesirable and not recommended, and still worthy of the individual being locked up. But a lot more complex situations arise from it. In a country where 40% of teenagers below the age of consent are apparently sexually active according to a survey a few years ago - you see the problems (in Germany that figure stands at a grotesquely high 25% in the same survey, so imagine 2 in every 5 teenage girls between 13 & 15 in the UK ....).
There has been a lot of gunge this week in the press about "vulnerable" teenage kids, or kids at a "vulnerable" age. The problem being that this makes all of them sound like passive recipients of unfortunate actions, when they are often nothing of the kind. Many kids of 14 and 15 of both sexes are already only too keen to show off their prowess, boast of their reputations in this respect usw. Vulnerable only affects the peer group members that they impress.
It is far too early, they are far too young usw? I agree actually. The facts of the matter is though that a lot of kids do get involved in this type of activity very early. This is again not new. I can quote friends back in the early 1960s who were already indulging in this sort of behaviour at the age of 14. And well-educated kids from good homes with caring parents as well. And as for listening to their parents who tell them "no" - see my item on "Cool" the other day. Do you really listen to your parents or your peer group?
And so when the 14-year-old girl with the schoolgirl crush and an amount of sexual experience sets her eyes on the young male teacher ..... Is the "child" really vulnerable? Or is the teacher possibly vulnerable, if he lacks the will-power to say "no"?
In most instances - see above - it is not a problem. But see Sting's song and see the problems involved. Back in 1980 after I moved to Manchester, I read one article in the local press of a young male teacher of 26 who was jailed for one year for one "indulgence" with one female 14-year-old pupil. Apparently she had pestered him and pestered him for weeks, and always been told "no". Finally for some reason he finally gave way. Why is difficult to understand, but with these persistent wretches .....
The sad part of the story is apparently that she hated the experience and went home and told her parents who complained to both the police and the school.
I cannot imagine what fascination getting involved with kids of that age would have for an adult anyway. That is not just down to my age now incidentally - it merely repeats what I thought some 40 years ago. For those who do not think like that though, I would remind them that they are professionals, they have the good name of their profession to consider, and would also note the two examples quoted on here as to what can happen if you do follow any ridiculous fantasy (and I do not think six years in jail is a worthwhile reward for any such misconduct).
Meaning leave the fantasies to the kids - and make sure that they stay just that and don't become anything else. In the long-term it is probably in their interest that they stay just that as well.
Sunday, 23 June 2013
Jeffrey Skilling is innocent?
OK, I had always thought he was guilty and the fact that they have reduced his sentence by 11 years but not quashed it entirely seems to indicate that he is still to be considered guilty, well sort of .....
Apparently the fact that he is going to pay out $40 million of his personal fortune to help people who lost money in the Enron crash has helped get his sentence reduced. Money he made trading Enron shares, one wonders? Nice to think you have 40 million to dish out even if you are sitting in jail waiting another 4 years now before you can get out.
As someone who has never committed a criminal offence in his life, I wonder what I would suddenly do if I had even 4 million - dollars or Euro - tomorrow. Apart from donating sums to WWF and other worthwhile causes that is. Maybe if I had been suitably dishonest ..... As it is 4,000 Euro would make a considerable difference.
Honesty is the best policy? Maybe and then again .....
Anyway one person whose wisdom was out there in Cyber Space put me to rights yesterday.
Jeffrey Skilling was not guilty. In fact he was a victim facing what many Americans, rich and poor alike, were facing - the international banksters who were a very threat to their (= "USA") Republic. These banksters who were backed by the UN ..... All a plot by these foreigners to bring America down. Free Skilling now!
It got funnier by the second. If there were any logic to this you would think that there wasn't a single dishonest fraudster in jail in the US at all. Even Bernie Madoff should be freed, if you take it to its logical conclusion. And Andy Fastow from Enron who exposed Skilling's (and the late Kenneth Lay's) shady dealings at Enron? Obviously a spy, a foreign agent .....
Well if you have read some of the stuff from supporters of the EXP (also known as the UKIP), you get use to this stuff (polite word) about foreigners causing all the problems - it is not a strictly American phenomenon. Some people in the UKIP don't like the Scots too much either, and think Wales is a distinct financial liability.
Anyway back to Skilling.
I have been reading up further on the subject today (not had that much time, too much work), but I try as ever to be even handed.
Surprisingly there are quite a few people out there (including, interestingly in India!) who think that Skilling is indeed innocent - even if - unlike the case above - they think that Andy Fastow was as guilty as the proverbial sin.
Example:
http://www.economist.com/node/10873801?zid=317&ah=8a47fc455a44945580198768fad0fa41
And note that the Economist is originally British and notably conservative.
On the other hand you have - American and liberal:
http://occupydemocrats.com/scandalous-enron-fraud-mastermind-jeff-skilling-offered-10-year-sentenced-reduction/
Read both, and other relevant stuff, and make up your own mind. Meanwhile if anyone knows a way I can make 40 million dollars or Euro very quickly and not get found out, please let me know!
Apparently the fact that he is going to pay out $40 million of his personal fortune to help people who lost money in the Enron crash has helped get his sentence reduced. Money he made trading Enron shares, one wonders? Nice to think you have 40 million to dish out even if you are sitting in jail waiting another 4 years now before you can get out.
As someone who has never committed a criminal offence in his life, I wonder what I would suddenly do if I had even 4 million - dollars or Euro - tomorrow. Apart from donating sums to WWF and other worthwhile causes that is. Maybe if I had been suitably dishonest ..... As it is 4,000 Euro would make a considerable difference.
Honesty is the best policy? Maybe and then again .....
Anyway one person whose wisdom was out there in Cyber Space put me to rights yesterday.
Jeffrey Skilling was not guilty. In fact he was a victim facing what many Americans, rich and poor alike, were facing - the international banksters who were a very threat to their (= "USA") Republic. These banksters who were backed by the UN ..... All a plot by these foreigners to bring America down. Free Skilling now!
It got funnier by the second. If there were any logic to this you would think that there wasn't a single dishonest fraudster in jail in the US at all. Even Bernie Madoff should be freed, if you take it to its logical conclusion. And Andy Fastow from Enron who exposed Skilling's (and the late Kenneth Lay's) shady dealings at Enron? Obviously a spy, a foreign agent .....
Well if you have read some of the stuff from supporters of the EXP (also known as the UKIP), you get use to this stuff (polite word) about foreigners causing all the problems - it is not a strictly American phenomenon. Some people in the UKIP don't like the Scots too much either, and think Wales is a distinct financial liability.
Anyway back to Skilling.
I have been reading up further on the subject today (not had that much time, too much work), but I try as ever to be even handed.
Surprisingly there are quite a few people out there (including, interestingly in India!) who think that Skilling is indeed innocent - even if - unlike the case above - they think that Andy Fastow was as guilty as the proverbial sin.
Example:
http://www.economist.com/node/10873801?zid=317&ah=8a47fc455a44945580198768fad0fa41
And note that the Economist is originally British and notably conservative.
On the other hand you have - American and liberal:
http://occupydemocrats.com/scandalous-enron-fraud-mastermind-jeff-skilling-offered-10-year-sentenced-reduction/
Read both, and other relevant stuff, and make up your own mind. Meanwhile if anyone knows a way I can make 40 million dollars or Euro very quickly and not get found out, please let me know!
Thursday, 20 June 2013
Quotes from the wonderful Audrey Hepburn
A wonderful actress, a better person still. Sadly missed.
I once saw an interview with her on British television (I cannot remember which channel) during which she made some very pertinent comments about growing up as a child in the Netherlands - during the Second World War! Sadly I cannot find those pertinent comments anywhere, but they were remarkably powerful and sand in the face of the political bullies who think that there is summat glorious about war.
Sadly I cannot find that quote. A pity many times over. Other quotes of value on significant issues can be found though - words that should help us remember this wonderful lady.
So to celebrate post number 444 on this blog, read the following, enjoy, appreciate, and try to react positively towards them in your own life and beyond!
http://www.biographyonline.net/humanitarian/hepburn-quotes.html
I once saw an interview with her on British television (I cannot remember which channel) during which she made some very pertinent comments about growing up as a child in the Netherlands - during the Second World War! Sadly I cannot find those pertinent comments anywhere, but they were remarkably powerful and sand in the face of the political bullies who think that there is summat glorious about war.
Sadly I cannot find that quote. A pity many times over. Other quotes of value on significant issues can be found though - words that should help us remember this wonderful lady.
So to celebrate post number 444 on this blog, read the following, enjoy, appreciate, and try to react positively towards them in your own life and beyond!
http://www.biographyonline.net/humanitarian/hepburn-quotes.html
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Cool
I had one of those flashbacks this morning.
A small redhead from Surrey (England, not New England) called Rachel whom I knew in my university days in Swansea. My friends informed me that she fancied me.
You know the sort of girls who fancy you and never act accordingly? That type.
Conversations between us did not amount to much. All-knowing stockbroker belt girl from the South-East meets blunt northerner from a working class family.
Never mind my IQ being at least her equal. Most of all she could never get my sense of humour. My ability to translate words and phrases back literally caused her considerable difficulties, and one day she admonished me with the expression:
"Tony, do you always have to be so prosaic?".
No chance. There were other proverbial fish that I had to fry (unsuccessfully as ever in those days). I went off to try and prosaically charm them - unsuccessfully.
Which brings me forward 40 years.
There is an American fashion outfit (who do not deserve any free publicity from me) that has decided that it wants to appeal entirely to kids who are "cool". Not literally (or prosaically) "cool" of course - I don't think that anoraks and heavy sweaters comprise the bulk of their product range. Just well "cool".
Digression - note to parents at this point. If you want your kids to be cool, please do not stick them in the fridge - assuming that you have one big enough. End of digression.
OK. Define "cool".
This word has been round in its current form for some 60 or so years actually, but finding a good definition is not easy actually. It is pretty much in the same category as "in" "hip", "with it" usw have been over the years.
What people, particularly young people, want to be like to impress their friends. And some adults who can capitalise upon it - like clothing manufacturers for example ....
No appealing to individuality, no trying to persuade people to "do their own thing". Fit the peer group image and expectations. Wear our gear - be cool!
Of course what was "cool" last year may well not be "cool" this year. This is a phenomenon which generations of parents have discovered over the years. Not that parents should matter that much in this argument. Peer groups decide what is "cool". Listening to what parents think was never too "cool" (would they understand anyway?) and their sole role in this is to pay out the substantial sums of money to allow for the new "cool" to replace the old "cool" - otherwise they are irrelevant (or stubborn or stroppy when they refuse to acknowledge their decided role in this cycle!).
Interestingly the word "cool" has crossed borders. It has not been translated in the process though. German online games players can go and try out www.coolespiele.com for example. Cool young people in Germany are not "kühl" - at least one hopes not!
Ever the non-conformist individualist, I never tried to fit the image of cool too much. In the UK I would never have got away with being "cool" at any point of my existence. I was also sadly never that appealing to women in the UK (not tall enough, not glib enough, too prosaic maybe?). It was always a source of surprise that women in France and the Netherlands found me far more fascinating (in certain instances anyway - avoid the generalisation where possible).
In Paris in 1989 I met the gorgeous, very sexy Sophie (mentioned in one of my previous pieces on here). I was 40, she was 23, but summat might have clicked long-term if my job had allowed me to stay and she could have curbed her propensity to flightiness.
One of her interesting descriptions of me was though, interestingly, that I was "un type cool".
Fascinating. What was not "cool" in the UK was "cool" in France. How does this work, one wonders?
Anyway enough of the nauseoustalgia. It is 34 degrees Celsius (93 Fahrenheit) outside. Cool, prosaically, it is not. Meanwhile an old Ray Charles CD is blasting out from the only thing that we have that still plays music efficiently - he was "cool" back in 1961 I recall. Time to dig out the extremely tight trousers and "Slim Jim" ties that were "cool" in my adolescent years, maybe?
Perhaps not. Being anything cool (even prosaically on days like this) is not that easy when you get past a certain age. Which may be as well!
A small redhead from Surrey (England, not New England) called Rachel whom I knew in my university days in Swansea. My friends informed me that she fancied me.
You know the sort of girls who fancy you and never act accordingly? That type.
Conversations between us did not amount to much. All-knowing stockbroker belt girl from the South-East meets blunt northerner from a working class family.
Never mind my IQ being at least her equal. Most of all she could never get my sense of humour. My ability to translate words and phrases back literally caused her considerable difficulties, and one day she admonished me with the expression:
"Tony, do you always have to be so prosaic?".
No chance. There were other proverbial fish that I had to fry (unsuccessfully as ever in those days). I went off to try and prosaically charm them - unsuccessfully.
Which brings me forward 40 years.
There is an American fashion outfit (who do not deserve any free publicity from me) that has decided that it wants to appeal entirely to kids who are "cool". Not literally (or prosaically) "cool" of course - I don't think that anoraks and heavy sweaters comprise the bulk of their product range. Just well "cool".
Digression - note to parents at this point. If you want your kids to be cool, please do not stick them in the fridge - assuming that you have one big enough. End of digression.
OK. Define "cool".
This word has been round in its current form for some 60 or so years actually, but finding a good definition is not easy actually. It is pretty much in the same category as "in" "hip", "with it" usw have been over the years.
What people, particularly young people, want to be like to impress their friends. And some adults who can capitalise upon it - like clothing manufacturers for example ....
No appealing to individuality, no trying to persuade people to "do their own thing". Fit the peer group image and expectations. Wear our gear - be cool!
Of course what was "cool" last year may well not be "cool" this year. This is a phenomenon which generations of parents have discovered over the years. Not that parents should matter that much in this argument. Peer groups decide what is "cool". Listening to what parents think was never too "cool" (would they understand anyway?) and their sole role in this is to pay out the substantial sums of money to allow for the new "cool" to replace the old "cool" - otherwise they are irrelevant (or stubborn or stroppy when they refuse to acknowledge their decided role in this cycle!).
Interestingly the word "cool" has crossed borders. It has not been translated in the process though. German online games players can go and try out www.coolespiele.com for example. Cool young people in Germany are not "kühl" - at least one hopes not!
Ever the non-conformist individualist, I never tried to fit the image of cool too much. In the UK I would never have got away with being "cool" at any point of my existence. I was also sadly never that appealing to women in the UK (not tall enough, not glib enough, too prosaic maybe?). It was always a source of surprise that women in France and the Netherlands found me far more fascinating (in certain instances anyway - avoid the generalisation where possible).
In Paris in 1989 I met the gorgeous, very sexy Sophie (mentioned in one of my previous pieces on here). I was 40, she was 23, but summat might have clicked long-term if my job had allowed me to stay and she could have curbed her propensity to flightiness.
One of her interesting descriptions of me was though, interestingly, that I was "un type cool".
Fascinating. What was not "cool" in the UK was "cool" in France. How does this work, one wonders?
Anyway enough of the nauseoustalgia. It is 34 degrees Celsius (93 Fahrenheit) outside. Cool, prosaically, it is not. Meanwhile an old Ray Charles CD is blasting out from the only thing that we have that still plays music efficiently - he was "cool" back in 1961 I recall. Time to dig out the extremely tight trousers and "Slim Jim" ties that were "cool" in my adolescent years, maybe?
Perhaps not. Being anything cool (even prosaically on days like this) is not that easy when you get past a certain age. Which may be as well!
Friday, 14 June 2013
How utterly stupid can you get?
Please also refer to my previous item called ""Megan and Jeremy's "elopement", and the third victim" dated September 30th, 2012.
Back then we had the story of the English schoolgirl from Sussex who ran off with her maths teacher, ended up in Bordeaux in France usw.
Her name was all over the place - in the press (both tabloid and quality) and not just in the UK but across Europe. And maybe beyond.
People are supposed to have short memories.
After as many months as it takes the ever efficient British judicial system to get moving, the teacher, Jeremy Forrest, has finally been brought to court to face all the charges involved with running off with this girl.
I will spare you any more of the sad sordid details. You can read them for yourself. I will offer you this from the usually staid and notoriously conservative Daily Telegraph (online edition):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10112325/Teacher-Jeremy-Forrest-fled-to-France-when-he-realised-school-knew-of-sexual-relationship-with-pupil.html
Note particularly the sentence reading:
"Forrest is alleged to have spent eight days on the run with the schoolgirl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons".
She has been identified. See above. Reread my article if you want. It is more than a bit difficult to put the genie back it in the bottle. Take her name and enter it on google. Plenty of references to her from September and October last year.
If legal reasons now apply, how does it work? On the old Pravda principle that you change history to suit your own version of the facts? As in Stalin's Russia, people simply cease to exist, or at least under the guise they previously had?
How stupid does this get?????
The Internet generation are here. Even if you don't know the girl's name you can go on google, type in the name of the defendant "Jeremy Forrest" and find her name from last September.
The law is sometimes described as "an ass". That is insulting to the average donkey!!!!
Maybe I am breaking the law in the publication of this article - but as I have already invited Muslim fanatics to put a fatwa on me and suffered no consequences, I think that there is nowt to fear from the asinine English legal system! Anyway given my limited readership .....
Finally for those of you out there who think that I lack a sense of humo(u)r, try this page of (more than occasionally) tasteless jokes that I discovered about the girl who cannot (cough, cough) be named - this I found on the Internet tonight and found a lot of them very funny, the first is a classic (please avoid this link if you dislike sexually overt jokes) .....
http://www.jokebook.eu/jokes/megan-stammers/best
Update - August 2018. That jokebook link no longer works and the domain is now for sale. Ever the problem with the Internet. Why it closed (lack of income, or some censors at work - and there are a load of those at work these days, particularly among the new guardians of what has now become politically correct (notoriously conservative individuals / groups who don't like being challenged, even by humour)), I have no idea.
There are now also many instances on various websites where conservatives/neofascists/religious fundamentalists have critical comments removed as spam. An interesting way of stopping intelligent opposition to their nauseating agenda!
Back then we had the story of the English schoolgirl from Sussex who ran off with her maths teacher, ended up in Bordeaux in France usw.
Her name was all over the place - in the press (both tabloid and quality) and not just in the UK but across Europe. And maybe beyond.
People are supposed to have short memories.
After as many months as it takes the ever efficient British judicial system to get moving, the teacher, Jeremy Forrest, has finally been brought to court to face all the charges involved with running off with this girl.
I will spare you any more of the sad sordid details. You can read them for yourself. I will offer you this from the usually staid and notoriously conservative Daily Telegraph (online edition):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10112325/Teacher-Jeremy-Forrest-fled-to-France-when-he-realised-school-knew-of-sexual-relationship-with-pupil.html
Note particularly the sentence reading:
"Forrest is alleged to have spent eight days on the run with the schoolgirl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons".
She has been identified. See above. Reread my article if you want. It is more than a bit difficult to put the genie back it in the bottle. Take her name and enter it on google. Plenty of references to her from September and October last year.
If legal reasons now apply, how does it work? On the old Pravda principle that you change history to suit your own version of the facts? As in Stalin's Russia, people simply cease to exist, or at least under the guise they previously had?
How stupid does this get?????
The Internet generation are here. Even if you don't know the girl's name you can go on google, type in the name of the defendant "Jeremy Forrest" and find her name from last September.
The law is sometimes described as "an ass". That is insulting to the average donkey!!!!
Maybe I am breaking the law in the publication of this article - but as I have already invited Muslim fanatics to put a fatwa on me and suffered no consequences, I think that there is nowt to fear from the asinine English legal system! Anyway given my limited readership .....
Finally for those of you out there who think that I lack a sense of humo(u)r, try this page of (more than occasionally) tasteless jokes that I discovered about the girl who cannot (cough, cough) be named - this I found on the Internet tonight and found a lot of them very funny, the first is a classic (please avoid this link if you dislike sexually overt jokes) .....
http://www.jokebook.eu/jokes/megan-stammers/best
Update - August 2018. That jokebook link no longer works and the domain is now for sale. Ever the problem with the Internet. Why it closed (lack of income, or some censors at work - and there are a load of those at work these days, particularly among the new guardians of what has now become politically correct (notoriously conservative individuals / groups who don't like being challenged, even by humour)), I have no idea.
There are now also many instances on various websites where conservatives/neofascists/religious fundamentalists have critical comments removed as spam. An interesting way of stopping intelligent opposition to their nauseating agenda!
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Criticising your boss online
I never fail to be amazed how naive some people are.
Let us say for example that your name is Steven Harrison or Laura Atkinson (not intended to be real people incidentally - if these are your real names, please do not think that I am talking about you). You work for a company called Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd.
You are not happy with things at work. Finally one evening you go home and sign on Facebook as "Steven Harrison" or "Laura Atkinson" and make some comment upon the lines that "Mr Smith of Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd is a complete jerk!", or "Ms Brown of Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd couldn't run a frigging booze-up in a brewery!".
A day, a week, a month goes past. Maybe even longer. Then at 10 o'clock one morning you find yourself called into your boss's office. One not very noisy but very one-sided conversation later (this might last a bit longer if there is a union rep in attendance, but do not expect much help from the union in these circumstances) you find yourself gathering what personal effects you had in the building and wondering how unemployment claims work as you walk out of the building for the last time.
"But this is a democracy. I have the right to freedom of speech", you may claim.
Maybe. But the company also has a right to expect commitment and loyalty from its employees. A democratic right. And if you cannot offer these qualities, then the company may well look at the situation in such a fashion that they have to decide that you really cannot help them to become the company that they want to become.
But if Mr Smith really is a jerk? And if Ms Brown couldn't actually run a frigging booze-up in a brewery? Well in this case they are the owners of the company, and in a democracy one of the sad facts of life is that they have the democratic right to run the company into the ground, maybe even into permanent non-existence! This may sounds strange, but this is how capitalism works in a democracy. Quite frequently. Unless the shareholders (if such exist independently) do summat to stop them at least.
And as uncomfortable as you may be with the situation, and as bad as unemployment usually is, you really are better off out of there. And you will then have more of a democratic right to say all you like about Mr Smith and Ms Brown, provided you do not cross the line where free speech ends and libel starts. That is if you can still afford to pay for your Internet service.
And if it is not the top boss that you are criticising, but the head of a department for example?
Say you work in a packaging department and your supervisor has the habit of acting like Mussolini on a bad day.
Go back home one night and describe the individual on Facebook as "a mean petty Fascist with no soul". For example.
Don't expect any plaudits from the company this time round either. They may not fire you, but a reprimand may still be forthcoming. And nor should you expect much else.
The line management were appointed by the company. They took the decision to place that person in that role, the person has their trust. Why would they have appointed him/her to fill the role in the first place if he/she were not up to it. Company morale may suffer if the individual has all the personal grace of a Genghis Khan or a Lucretia Borgia, but there must have been a reason.
Again by taking a pot shot at this individual you have also taken a pot shot at the company. Their decision is under fire. The criticism may this time be indirect, but it still exists. And then they may well have every confidence in the supervisor and no confidence in you. If they want an assessment of you, who do they ask? Got it in one!
You may find that you are seen as a slacker and a lounger who finds three times of the day interesting - coffee breaks, lunch time, and whenever it is time to leave in the evening.
That isn't you? Of course it isn't, but according to your immediate superior in the hierarchy, you are, and who are they more likely to trust?
There are ways to tackle the problem. If you are a union member, talk to the union rep. If not, then go over your supervisor's head and talk to his/her boss. If enough people do this and there is the general consensus that the person concerned isn't quite what the company expects or believes, they may take a closer look and eventually make a change. Companies want efficiency eventually, and the more content the staff employed, the more efficient they are likely to be.
But going home and simply writing a critical comment upon social media achieves nowt useful, and is more likely to bring acrimony down upon you.
I make a personal point of never naming names when problems arise. I have worked for a number of companies over the years, either as permanent staff or as an external consultant. Some companies have had very good management and I am not afraid to mention the companies where I have had good experiences (BGC in Amsterdam, Motorola in München, Rockwell Automation in Capelle-aan-der-Ijssel, Hydro IS Partner in Oslo - plaudits to all of them). Name the individual managers, project leaders usw? No, I will not go that far, I do not want to embarrass them.
Then there were the companies which I could name as having some dreadful people in charge when I was there. But I will not do that - never mind the individuals who would rate a score of -5 on a scale from 1 to 10.
There are ways to do this. Public humiliation of others in the social media though - washing the dirty laundry if you prefer - what good does it achieve? Eventually you are more likely to find that you will only besmirch your own reputation.
That isn't fair? Maybe not, but companies that want to succeed do not like losing good people. And when some of their better personnel start walking off in other directions, they will gradually recognise the need to change - eventually.
But no amount of poisoned barbs on the Internet will have that impact, in fact they are more likely to exacerbate the situation rather than improve it!
Let us say for example that your name is Steven Harrison or Laura Atkinson (not intended to be real people incidentally - if these are your real names, please do not think that I am talking about you). You work for a company called Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd.
You are not happy with things at work. Finally one evening you go home and sign on Facebook as "Steven Harrison" or "Laura Atkinson" and make some comment upon the lines that "Mr Smith of Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd is a complete jerk!", or "Ms Brown of Smith, Brown and Jones Widgets Ltd couldn't run a frigging booze-up in a brewery!".
A day, a week, a month goes past. Maybe even longer. Then at 10 o'clock one morning you find yourself called into your boss's office. One not very noisy but very one-sided conversation later (this might last a bit longer if there is a union rep in attendance, but do not expect much help from the union in these circumstances) you find yourself gathering what personal effects you had in the building and wondering how unemployment claims work as you walk out of the building for the last time.
"But this is a democracy. I have the right to freedom of speech", you may claim.
Maybe. But the company also has a right to expect commitment and loyalty from its employees. A democratic right. And if you cannot offer these qualities, then the company may well look at the situation in such a fashion that they have to decide that you really cannot help them to become the company that they want to become.
But if Mr Smith really is a jerk? And if Ms Brown couldn't actually run a frigging booze-up in a brewery? Well in this case they are the owners of the company, and in a democracy one of the sad facts of life is that they have the democratic right to run the company into the ground, maybe even into permanent non-existence! This may sounds strange, but this is how capitalism works in a democracy. Quite frequently. Unless the shareholders (if such exist independently) do summat to stop them at least.
And as uncomfortable as you may be with the situation, and as bad as unemployment usually is, you really are better off out of there. And you will then have more of a democratic right to say all you like about Mr Smith and Ms Brown, provided you do not cross the line where free speech ends and libel starts. That is if you can still afford to pay for your Internet service.
And if it is not the top boss that you are criticising, but the head of a department for example?
Say you work in a packaging department and your supervisor has the habit of acting like Mussolini on a bad day.
Go back home one night and describe the individual on Facebook as "a mean petty Fascist with no soul". For example.
Don't expect any plaudits from the company this time round either. They may not fire you, but a reprimand may still be forthcoming. And nor should you expect much else.
The line management were appointed by the company. They took the decision to place that person in that role, the person has their trust. Why would they have appointed him/her to fill the role in the first place if he/she were not up to it. Company morale may suffer if the individual has all the personal grace of a Genghis Khan or a Lucretia Borgia, but there must have been a reason.
Again by taking a pot shot at this individual you have also taken a pot shot at the company. Their decision is under fire. The criticism may this time be indirect, but it still exists. And then they may well have every confidence in the supervisor and no confidence in you. If they want an assessment of you, who do they ask? Got it in one!
You may find that you are seen as a slacker and a lounger who finds three times of the day interesting - coffee breaks, lunch time, and whenever it is time to leave in the evening.
That isn't you? Of course it isn't, but according to your immediate superior in the hierarchy, you are, and who are they more likely to trust?
There are ways to tackle the problem. If you are a union member, talk to the union rep. If not, then go over your supervisor's head and talk to his/her boss. If enough people do this and there is the general consensus that the person concerned isn't quite what the company expects or believes, they may take a closer look and eventually make a change. Companies want efficiency eventually, and the more content the staff employed, the more efficient they are likely to be.
But going home and simply writing a critical comment upon social media achieves nowt useful, and is more likely to bring acrimony down upon you.
I make a personal point of never naming names when problems arise. I have worked for a number of companies over the years, either as permanent staff or as an external consultant. Some companies have had very good management and I am not afraid to mention the companies where I have had good experiences (BGC in Amsterdam, Motorola in München, Rockwell Automation in Capelle-aan-der-Ijssel, Hydro IS Partner in Oslo - plaudits to all of them). Name the individual managers, project leaders usw? No, I will not go that far, I do not want to embarrass them.
Then there were the companies which I could name as having some dreadful people in charge when I was there. But I will not do that - never mind the individuals who would rate a score of -5 on a scale from 1 to 10.
There are ways to do this. Public humiliation of others in the social media though - washing the dirty laundry if you prefer - what good does it achieve? Eventually you are more likely to find that you will only besmirch your own reputation.
That isn't fair? Maybe not, but companies that want to succeed do not like losing good people. And when some of their better personnel start walking off in other directions, they will gradually recognise the need to change - eventually.
But no amount of poisoned barbs on the Internet will have that impact, in fact they are more likely to exacerbate the situation rather than improve it!
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Only nostalgia or still achievable?
Firstly read this interesting article:
http://news.yahoo.com/listened-eisenhower-110600933.html
and while accepting that it is potentially oversimplified, ask yourself what is wrong with the thinking.
Then look at the economic model practised during the Eisenhower years - growing prosperity across the board, low debt on the manageable credit principle (both in the private and public sphere).
It worked, it was successful, at that time at least. So ask yourself, could it work now?
Imagine a political party in the United States having the nerve to push that agenda - starting with the top tax rates. What would their chances be? Even given the message that it works. The chances are that they would face total wipeout!
The nonsensical 1980s model with all the problems that it generated remains far more popular. Ask yourself why some time!
Change countries. Apply the same thinking to the British Conservative Party in the 1950s. Replace Eisenhower with a combination of Churchill, Eden and MacMillan (particularly the latter). The same story - growing prosperity across the board, low debt on the manageable credit principle (both in the private and public sphere)! And remember the famous MacMillan quote: "Indeed, let us be frank about it. Most of our people have never had it so good". And was he right? Of course he was! And could that have been said 30 or 65 years later? Of course not!
Compare the mass unemployment and record poverty levels of the Thatcher years.
Compare the high unemployment and stagnation and high poverty levels under Cameron (and if Blair and Brown can be held responsible for the current state of affairs, explain to me what they did which was vastly different from what Thatcher preached!).
Change countries again. Compare Merkel with Adenauer. Compare Germany now with the fast growing country of the boom years of the 1950s. Merkel is going to win the 2013 election clearly, even if her party will need to be in a coalition to rule. Is this really the inheritance, the legacy of Adenauer and Erhard?
With unemployment at its current level and the limited opportunities to change things?
It appears to work on the "well things can only get worse" principle. There are many good things to be said as to how things work here - health service, transportation, relatively low crime rates usw. And it remains the best place in the world to live, even in these times which are not so easy.
But if someone were to offer a repeat of the 1950s economy as an alternative? Complacency seems a poor alternative IMHO.
Reread the above piece again. Ask yourself if this is merely nostalgia, or was the model simply better and worth revisiting? Even given how technology has changed everything.
It remains a good question. It would be nice to have a chance to find out.
http://news.yahoo.com/listened-eisenhower-110600933.html
and while accepting that it is potentially oversimplified, ask yourself what is wrong with the thinking.
Then look at the economic model practised during the Eisenhower years - growing prosperity across the board, low debt on the manageable credit principle (both in the private and public sphere).
It worked, it was successful, at that time at least. So ask yourself, could it work now?
Imagine a political party in the United States having the nerve to push that agenda - starting with the top tax rates. What would their chances be? Even given the message that it works. The chances are that they would face total wipeout!
The nonsensical 1980s model with all the problems that it generated remains far more popular. Ask yourself why some time!
Change countries. Apply the same thinking to the British Conservative Party in the 1950s. Replace Eisenhower with a combination of Churchill, Eden and MacMillan (particularly the latter). The same story - growing prosperity across the board, low debt on the manageable credit principle (both in the private and public sphere)! And remember the famous MacMillan quote: "Indeed, let us be frank about it. Most of our people have never had it so good". And was he right? Of course he was! And could that have been said 30 or 65 years later? Of course not!
Compare the mass unemployment and record poverty levels of the Thatcher years.
Compare the high unemployment and stagnation and high poverty levels under Cameron (and if Blair and Brown can be held responsible for the current state of affairs, explain to me what they did which was vastly different from what Thatcher preached!).
Change countries again. Compare Merkel with Adenauer. Compare Germany now with the fast growing country of the boom years of the 1950s. Merkel is going to win the 2013 election clearly, even if her party will need to be in a coalition to rule. Is this really the inheritance, the legacy of Adenauer and Erhard?
With unemployment at its current level and the limited opportunities to change things?
It appears to work on the "well things can only get worse" principle. There are many good things to be said as to how things work here - health service, transportation, relatively low crime rates usw. And it remains the best place in the world to live, even in these times which are not so easy.
But if someone were to offer a repeat of the 1950s economy as an alternative? Complacency seems a poor alternative IMHO.
Reread the above piece again. Ask yourself if this is merely nostalgia, or was the model simply better and worth revisiting? Even given how technology has changed everything.
It remains a good question. It would be nice to have a chance to find out.
Postscript (December 31st, 2021). The link no longer exists, but I think that you can work out from the rest of this article what its contents were.
Monday, 10 June 2013
Mahatma Gandhi or Ayn Rand
Obvious answer:
Mahatma Gandhi.
Obvious follow-up comment:
I could nor would want to want to live like either of them, but empty materialism and emphasising all the failures of the human psyche seem to have little to recommend themselves to anyone with intellectual pretensions.
From a religious perspective I have less in common with Gandhi than Rand - I am like her an atheist (US Republican party supporters who fawn upon her memory - please note! None of your Christian Conservative illogic. She at least understood what Christ was all about! Check out Matthew ch. 19 vv. 20-24 again!).
But I do not personally need luxury for its own sake, and if we all aspire to live like that human existence as we know it will be finished within a century.
Anyway given the corporatocracy and the political and economic control that it has over the entire planet, the myth of the rugged individualist is just that - a myth!
Mahatma Gandhi.
Obvious follow-up comment:
I could nor would want to want to live like either of them, but empty materialism and emphasising all the failures of the human psyche seem to have little to recommend themselves to anyone with intellectual pretensions.
From a religious perspective I have less in common with Gandhi than Rand - I am like her an atheist (US Republican party supporters who fawn upon her memory - please note! None of your Christian Conservative illogic. She at least understood what Christ was all about! Check out Matthew ch. 19 vv. 20-24 again!).
But I do not personally need luxury for its own sake, and if we all aspire to live like that human existence as we know it will be finished within a century.
Anyway given the corporatocracy and the political and economic control that it has over the entire planet, the myth of the rugged individualist is just that - a myth!
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Words of wisdom from a possibly unlikely source
I still will not change my views on religion, I will still not accept the existence of a God or an after-life, but some words coming from the new Pope really impress me.
Reported on Yahoo News (I assume what he said is translated): He showed a similar ease on Friday as he engaged in a good 30 minutes of banter with the schoolchildren, casually making the points he has made in his homilies and speeches: about the "scandal" of poverty and how the world frets when the stock market dips but cares nothing when a homeless person dies, and how everyone should learn a lesson from the poor.
Now if he can get some of the world's politicians and business leaders to listen and act - all power to him!
Reported on Yahoo News (I assume what he said is translated): He showed a similar ease on Friday as he engaged in a good 30 minutes of banter with the schoolchildren, casually making the points he has made in his homilies and speeches: about the "scandal" of poverty and how the world frets when the stock market dips but cares nothing when a homeless person dies, and how everyone should learn a lesson from the poor.
Now if he can get some of the world's politicians and business leaders to listen and act - all power to him!
Friday, 7 June 2013
Beauty contests
The whole concept of a beauty contest seems a weird leftover from bygone days.
The sole role of a young woman is to look nice and be able to show a pleasant demeanour, and if she wins she can turn up and beautify a number of sponsored events over the years.
Fine but these days you do not need a contest, do you? You can get some smart, elegant female executive to turn up and make the sponsored event successful and you not need worry about how good the product is - she will be capable of getting the required results, right?
The last time that I saw anything on these lines was when Bob Hope got heckled by the "Women's Liberation Movement" at the Miss World contest - checking this morning, I found out that this was back in 1970, or 43 years ago.
That they still have a "Miss World" competition .... OK. In those days it was always held in London. These days it has gone international. Or so I discovered today.
Someone had the bright idea of putting the competition on in Indonesia. Indonesia is primarily a Muslim country - not fanatically so, maybe, but certainly to a point where there are expectations.
That they can even hold a beauty contest in a Muslim country sounds like that they are not that fanatical. That the young ladies can parade around without their heads covered or can talk to men who are not members of their families - OK, sounds relatively advanced.
One thing though that apparently is important. They are going to parade in sarongs and not in bikinis. Bikinis are apparently "no go".
With the best will in the world, I am prone to wonder why not. If this was an integral part of the competition. Just parading round, trying to look "beautiful" is a weird enough concept. And what I remember of the "Miss World" contest back in the days of my youth was that it was absolutely supposed to be about beauty, but nowt sexual .... Times maybe move on. Maybe.
Sexuality in even a small basic area like wearing a bikini (which tend mainly to be worn for comfort in hot climates - plenty of fairly elderly ladies wear them purely for that purpose) upsets Muslims for some reason - which says a lot about the primitive instincts of Muslim men, I suppose!
The point being though - why try to hold a contest anywhere where the rules have to changed just to fit the location? If you have to hold it all?
It has its supporters still. Quite why I do not understand, but anyway - why make a political issue of summat like this. If people cannot live with the standards that you set for your competition, simply take it elsewhere where the guidelines are acceptable.
The sole role of a young woman is to look nice and be able to show a pleasant demeanour, and if she wins she can turn up and beautify a number of sponsored events over the years.
Fine but these days you do not need a contest, do you? You can get some smart, elegant female executive to turn up and make the sponsored event successful and you not need worry about how good the product is - she will be capable of getting the required results, right?
The last time that I saw anything on these lines was when Bob Hope got heckled by the "Women's Liberation Movement" at the Miss World contest - checking this morning, I found out that this was back in 1970, or 43 years ago.
That they still have a "Miss World" competition .... OK. In those days it was always held in London. These days it has gone international. Or so I discovered today.
Someone had the bright idea of putting the competition on in Indonesia. Indonesia is primarily a Muslim country - not fanatically so, maybe, but certainly to a point where there are expectations.
That they can even hold a beauty contest in a Muslim country sounds like that they are not that fanatical. That the young ladies can parade around without their heads covered or can talk to men who are not members of their families - OK, sounds relatively advanced.
One thing though that apparently is important. They are going to parade in sarongs and not in bikinis. Bikinis are apparently "no go".
With the best will in the world, I am prone to wonder why not. If this was an integral part of the competition. Just parading round, trying to look "beautiful" is a weird enough concept. And what I remember of the "Miss World" contest back in the days of my youth was that it was absolutely supposed to be about beauty, but nowt sexual .... Times maybe move on. Maybe.
Sexuality in even a small basic area like wearing a bikini (which tend mainly to be worn for comfort in hot climates - plenty of fairly elderly ladies wear them purely for that purpose) upsets Muslims for some reason - which says a lot about the primitive instincts of Muslim men, I suppose!
The point being though - why try to hold a contest anywhere where the rules have to changed just to fit the location? If you have to hold it all?
It has its supporters still. Quite why I do not understand, but anyway - why make a political issue of summat like this. If people cannot live with the standards that you set for your competition, simply take it elsewhere where the guidelines are acceptable.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Good extremists and bad extremists?
In the aftermath of last week's brutal attack in London, some extremely unpleasant reactions have become noticeable.
To note immediately I regard Islam as barbaric and pre-medieval and its enforced belief system as totally unacceptable.
But that is still no justification for the neo-Fascist fringe to take the law into their own hands and indulge their own need for revenge. There is a legal system in place, the law should be allowed to take its course.
I have mentioned this before, but it is worth repeating. Involved here to a great extent are two forms of Fascism - Islamofascism from the Islamic fundamentalists, and standard Euro-Fascism in response. Both are extremes, both in my opinion are wrong and unacceptable.
My concern last week when the two Nigerian-British Muslims barbarically killed the soldier on the streets of Woolwich (and it is worth repeating, again, that their immigrant parents were Christians and in both cases the sons converted to this barbaric antiquated form of Islam) was simple enough. When does the next David Copeland, Anders Breivik or NSU underground movement (Uwe Mundlos, Uwe Böhnhardt, Beate Zäpsche) emerge from the gutter and start killing people in the name of combatting Islam?
Worth noting that in all three cases more people were killed by these thugs than were killed in London last week. That Anders Breivik killed 77 people alone should not be forgotten.
Two interesting items on Breivik.
The first - the amazing, peaceful response last year from the people of Norway to state what they stood for by singing a children's song (that Breivik hated incidentally):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17863332
The second - a Norwegian response from Aslak Sira Myrhe to the Breivik trial and the questions that arise from it (and note the comment about 1930s Fascism - we must be on our guard in this respect):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/anders-breivik-verdict-norway
My views on religion are known. I have little time for any belief system, but practise it on your own in your own time and do not hurt anyone else as a result. Frankly I will state the opinion that it will serve no purpose, but I will not deny you your democratic right to believe if you choose.
Abuses by believers though do not and cannot justify violent reactions against other individuals under any circumstances. If someone else who follows the belief's creed of violence is threatening to follow up on it, then recourse to the existing legal system is available. There is no need for, or possible acceptance of, vigilante action.
Postscript - to note in passing. Anders Breivik claims to be a Christian. My fellow atheists will be interested to know that Breivik does not acknowledge the existence of atheists or agnostics. They are either Christian-atheists or Christian-agnostics. In other words even though atheist or agnostic, we are still Christians! Make of that what you will.
To note immediately I regard Islam as barbaric and pre-medieval and its enforced belief system as totally unacceptable.
But that is still no justification for the neo-Fascist fringe to take the law into their own hands and indulge their own need for revenge. There is a legal system in place, the law should be allowed to take its course.
I have mentioned this before, but it is worth repeating. Involved here to a great extent are two forms of Fascism - Islamofascism from the Islamic fundamentalists, and standard Euro-Fascism in response. Both are extremes, both in my opinion are wrong and unacceptable.
My concern last week when the two Nigerian-British Muslims barbarically killed the soldier on the streets of Woolwich (and it is worth repeating, again, that their immigrant parents were Christians and in both cases the sons converted to this barbaric antiquated form of Islam) was simple enough. When does the next David Copeland, Anders Breivik or NSU underground movement (Uwe Mundlos, Uwe Böhnhardt, Beate Zäpsche) emerge from the gutter and start killing people in the name of combatting Islam?
Worth noting that in all three cases more people were killed by these thugs than were killed in London last week. That Anders Breivik killed 77 people alone should not be forgotten.
Two interesting items on Breivik.
The first - the amazing, peaceful response last year from the people of Norway to state what they stood for by singing a children's song (that Breivik hated incidentally):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17863332
The second - a Norwegian response from Aslak Sira Myrhe to the Breivik trial and the questions that arise from it (and note the comment about 1930s Fascism - we must be on our guard in this respect):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/anders-breivik-verdict-norway
My views on religion are known. I have little time for any belief system, but practise it on your own in your own time and do not hurt anyone else as a result. Frankly I will state the opinion that it will serve no purpose, but I will not deny you your democratic right to believe if you choose.
Abuses by believers though do not and cannot justify violent reactions against other individuals under any circumstances. If someone else who follows the belief's creed of violence is threatening to follow up on it, then recourse to the existing legal system is available. There is no need for, or possible acceptance of, vigilante action.
Postscript - to note in passing. Anders Breivik claims to be a Christian. My fellow atheists will be interested to know that Breivik does not acknowledge the existence of atheists or agnostics. They are either Christian-atheists or Christian-agnostics. In other words even though atheist or agnostic, we are still Christians! Make of that what you will.
Monday, 3 June 2013
Advertising and sport - local and parochial
It was one of those journeys to Thailand to visit my wife's family and friends a few years ago. I was sitting half asleep and jet-lagged in the back of the car taking us from the airport into Bangkok. There suddenly beaming down on us from the side of the freeway was just about the largest billboard that I had ever seen.
On it was a serious looking David Beckham, and some product (to do with car lubrication) that he was obviously being well paid to endorse.
The other question that I was prone to raise was whether he could speak Thai, as, apart from the product name, the rest was written in Thai, and never having mastered Khmer script, there was not much for me to understand.
It says a lot though how advertising is used. The company had obviously paid Mister Beckham a lot of money to make this advert. English Premier League football (soccer to my North American readers) is big business in Asia, and the endorsement was obviously worth the company's while.
It probably says more about me (and realise that I have never been a car driver, so I do not need such things) than the advertisement that I cannot remember the name of the product - which, if you think about it, would defeat the purpose of the advertisement! And I would not wish to hazard a guess as I do not want to associate Mister Beckham's name with a product that he did not endorse (imagine, in a different context, saying someone endorsed Pepsi when they actually endorse Coke?).
International advertising and its global ramifications have reached this point though. Ask the obvious question - is there nobody in Thailand, whose ability to speak Thai is unquestioned, who could not have been asked to advertise the product? The big global international star makes the ad far more significant, obviously.
Whether it makes the product better? Ah well, we are not supposed to think about quality are we? It may be a top-class product, would a celebrity endorse owt else?
As regular readers will know I have started watching baseball highlights on mlb.com again - particularly as the Red Sox are, thus far, having a successful season (I know - wait till September when they normally blow up!).
The advertising streams on the Internet are interesting though. Go down one path to follow the highlights you end up with American adverts, go down another you get ads in German.
Of all the top American sports, baseball is the one that is most heavily based in the US (though its significance in Japan and the Caribbean should never be underestimated). So the American advertisements you might expect. Europe? The Dutch have a baseball culture that should not be dismissed too quickly, including some useful players playing at AAA and AA level in the US. Germany - well the US forces here might be interested, and that is about the story, you would think.
So to get adverts for the mobile 'phone provider, Klarmobil, at the end of every other separate game highlight is a bit surprising. Funny, amusing (the phrase "sauber und sau günstig" has become a significant part of my German vocabulary in the past couple of weeks as a result), but surely they are not hoping to capture much of a market among people watching baseball highlights?
Or maybe there are a lot of discerning Germans who appreciate baseball as a great sport to watch - which it is (at least when the Red Sox are winning - where did I put that "irony" smiley?).
The American ads are more interesting from my perspective, not least as they deal with outlets and products that do not appear to be available here! I had never heard of Ace Hardware stores for example. Not that I am prone to visit Hornbach or Obi or the other German equivalents very often. DIY is not my thing.
One of the more intriguing products though is 5-Hour Energy. Enter Bo Jackson, former professional baseball and (American) Football player, one of the few players to perform professionally in both sports.
That Mister Jackson once had a lot of energy is obvious from his resume. That he does not "have the energy he used to have" (see the advert some time) now he is in the business world (good to see an African-American being so successful in the business world incidentally! That helps buck a silly stereotype) goes I suppose without saying. After all he is not 25 any more. So he uses this product to give him the energy he needs.
Well he is personable, amusing, even inspiring and the adverts are extremely well made.
The product? I had never previously heard of it, I have never seen it advertised for sale anywhere here, and wouldn't have known about what it was or what it can do before these ads came along. Thank baseball for introducing it to us, even if I cannot buy it anywhere!
I did check on the Internet this morning. It is actually sold in the UK (when American companies want to sell a product in Europe, they often start with the UK - one wonders whether that will continue when the Tories and their friends in the UKIP/EXP take the UK out of the EU).
Not sure whether there will be a market for this in Germany, but we shall see. Germany has very tight restrictions on what can be sold on health grounds, and from some of the comments that I read on the Internet this morning, there may be one or two issues to address. That said I have heard some similar issues aimed in the direction of Red Bull and that is available here, so do not prejudge the issue.
I am intrigued though what else I am going to discover over the next few weeks. What new products there are out there usw. Then the questions as to whether they are any good, whether I can actually purchase them anywhere and, equally importantly, whether I can afford them will remain to be seen!
On it was a serious looking David Beckham, and some product (to do with car lubrication) that he was obviously being well paid to endorse.
The other question that I was prone to raise was whether he could speak Thai, as, apart from the product name, the rest was written in Thai, and never having mastered Khmer script, there was not much for me to understand.
It says a lot though how advertising is used. The company had obviously paid Mister Beckham a lot of money to make this advert. English Premier League football (soccer to my North American readers) is big business in Asia, and the endorsement was obviously worth the company's while.
It probably says more about me (and realise that I have never been a car driver, so I do not need such things) than the advertisement that I cannot remember the name of the product - which, if you think about it, would defeat the purpose of the advertisement! And I would not wish to hazard a guess as I do not want to associate Mister Beckham's name with a product that he did not endorse (imagine, in a different context, saying someone endorsed Pepsi when they actually endorse Coke?).
International advertising and its global ramifications have reached this point though. Ask the obvious question - is there nobody in Thailand, whose ability to speak Thai is unquestioned, who could not have been asked to advertise the product? The big global international star makes the ad far more significant, obviously.
Whether it makes the product better? Ah well, we are not supposed to think about quality are we? It may be a top-class product, would a celebrity endorse owt else?
As regular readers will know I have started watching baseball highlights on mlb.com again - particularly as the Red Sox are, thus far, having a successful season (I know - wait till September when they normally blow up!).
The advertising streams on the Internet are interesting though. Go down one path to follow the highlights you end up with American adverts, go down another you get ads in German.
Of all the top American sports, baseball is the one that is most heavily based in the US (though its significance in Japan and the Caribbean should never be underestimated). So the American advertisements you might expect. Europe? The Dutch have a baseball culture that should not be dismissed too quickly, including some useful players playing at AAA and AA level in the US. Germany - well the US forces here might be interested, and that is about the story, you would think.
So to get adverts for the mobile 'phone provider, Klarmobil, at the end of every other separate game highlight is a bit surprising. Funny, amusing (the phrase "sauber und sau günstig" has become a significant part of my German vocabulary in the past couple of weeks as a result), but surely they are not hoping to capture much of a market among people watching baseball highlights?
Or maybe there are a lot of discerning Germans who appreciate baseball as a great sport to watch - which it is (at least when the Red Sox are winning - where did I put that "irony" smiley?).
The American ads are more interesting from my perspective, not least as they deal with outlets and products that do not appear to be available here! I had never heard of Ace Hardware stores for example. Not that I am prone to visit Hornbach or Obi or the other German equivalents very often. DIY is not my thing.
One of the more intriguing products though is 5-Hour Energy. Enter Bo Jackson, former professional baseball and (American) Football player, one of the few players to perform professionally in both sports.
That Mister Jackson once had a lot of energy is obvious from his resume. That he does not "have the energy he used to have" (see the advert some time) now he is in the business world (good to see an African-American being so successful in the business world incidentally! That helps buck a silly stereotype) goes I suppose without saying. After all he is not 25 any more. So he uses this product to give him the energy he needs.
Well he is personable, amusing, even inspiring and the adverts are extremely well made.
The product? I had never previously heard of it, I have never seen it advertised for sale anywhere here, and wouldn't have known about what it was or what it can do before these ads came along. Thank baseball for introducing it to us, even if I cannot buy it anywhere!
I did check on the Internet this morning. It is actually sold in the UK (when American companies want to sell a product in Europe, they often start with the UK - one wonders whether that will continue when the Tories and their friends in the UKIP/EXP take the UK out of the EU).
Not sure whether there will be a market for this in Germany, but we shall see. Germany has very tight restrictions on what can be sold on health grounds, and from some of the comments that I read on the Internet this morning, there may be one or two issues to address. That said I have heard some similar issues aimed in the direction of Red Bull and that is available here, so do not prejudge the issue.
I am intrigued though what else I am going to discover over the next few weeks. What new products there are out there usw. Then the questions as to whether they are any good, whether I can actually purchase them anywhere and, equally importantly, whether I can afford them will remain to be seen!
Saturday, 1 June 2013
Visas
The first time that I ever needed a visa was in 1975.
I had already been to some seven or eight European countries without one, so which exotic destination would you imagine required me to have a visa?
Answer (and this no longer applies incidentally) was .... the United States of America! Special relationship or no they were not prepared to let me in without the document in question. This proved no real problem though. I obtained the application form in advance, duly filled it out, and headed off to London, where I dropped it off at the US Embassy in the morning and collected it from there the same afternoon.
Obviously nothing about me was suspicious. The only potential pitfall was the question on the form: "Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?". Everyone was bound to answer "No". Rabid Trotskyists (the more logical description for radicals of the period - Communists were definitely old hat!) would, for instance, regard the CP as a conservative leaning organisation!
Interestingly there was no question as to whether I had ever been a Nazi, but anyway, move on.
The visa served me well twice - both times crossing from Canada (for which country I did not need a visa!) to the US. Once you had it, you did not need to reapply - so when I went back in 1983, I could flash the old visa upon entry. These days (see also above) citizens from certain allied countries are excluded from the need to have one. Which is all well and good and the way it should be where friends are concerned (OK, as a result the likes of Richard Reid got in without a visa, as would Anjem Choudary, if other factors were not involved).
This requirement to obtain a visa is though subject to inconsistencies where countries are concerned. Take Thailand for example. A European who wants to go to Thailand for wharrever reason can enter the country for four weeks without needing a visa. The Thais regard tourism as a very important source of income, and are not too keen to put off visitors coming to enjoy the beaches and the culture. That it also has allowed in more than a few dubious individuals looking for sexual thrills - well that is the risk that has be taken, although increasingly draconian sentences have been put in place for foreign paedophiles who commit offences.
Anyway if the Thais allow Europeans in for four weeks without a visa, you would think that European countries would reciprocate, right?
There are three levels of reply for this: no, no and no!
Someone coming from Thailand to a European country will require a visa - at least in those countries with which I am most familiar (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Belgium). The type of visa will depend upon the purpose (business, student, tourist).
The purpose - well that depends upon interpretation. Some would claim that it is in the entrant's interests (the authorities do not want to allow young women to be exploited as prostitutes for example). This sounds laudable enough, although there is the sense of racial profiling and trying to keep "coloured" immigrants out - well they would certainly want to stay over the time usw. This can lead to some fairly difficult protracted discussions at immigration control, particularly if the visitor has a limited command of English or the native tongue of the country entered.
As with Thai visitors, so with visitors from other countries that are "visa" countries. Though it would not be surprising if the residents of some countries were treated with more suspicion that those of others. One would imagine that a Thai resident might face a bit less hassle than a resident of Pakistan for example.This isn't supposed to happen like that, but ....
Once inside the Schengen zone, that is more or less it. In theory France expects visas from visitors from some countries while Germany may allow them access with a passport only. So checks are made on trains between the two countries occasionally. The same seems to apply between Germany and the Netherlands.
The UK is not of course a member of the Schengen agreement, so a visitor to Germany will need a totally different set-up for entering the UK. A constant source of frustration to me personally is the fact that my wife has a permanent resident permit for Germany and can travel to 22 other European countries (including non-EU Switzerland and Norway) without a separate visa, but still needs one for the UK. And this despite the fact that she is married to a British citizen (an ethnically white European British citizen whose ancestors arrived as illegal immigrants to England on the Viking longboats some 1200-1300 years ago!).
If I want to take her to the UK (as my wife, not as a lady of the night who will provide me an income - let us make that point clear!), she needs a visa. The standard tourist visa costs 95 Euro and lasts six months. There is the possible 10-year visa which costs a ridiculous 882 Euro! We have spent a total of 6 days in the UK in the 11 years that we have been married, and spending even 95 Euro strikes me as outrageous, particularly when I can take her to Norway or Holland or France for nothing - her passport and German residence permit being sufficient.
What was even more ridiculous in 2008 (and I do not know whether this has changed) was the fact that you could not apply for a visa by post any more - even if you had had one before! You had to attend an interview in Düsseldorf in person! Which meant another 90 Euro in travel costs for the return journey by train (and 2 and a half hours travel time). For someone living in Garmisch-Partenkirchen or Rostock, that would be a much longer and more expensive journey.
It is a grotesque waste of money (and we do not have a lot spare to waste on nonsense of this ilk). And frankly insulting, and typical nonsensical British insularity!
What really surprises me is that, as I have married a non-UK national and live outside the country, that they do not want me to have a visa as well! Get an EXP (UKIP to the idiots who support it) government some time, they may even come up with that idea.
There really should be a standardisation of visa awards, so that they reflect the nature of the agreement both ways. The fact the Thais among others allow themselves to be treated like suckers while opening their doors to foreign visitors for four weeks without all this nonsense causes me personally no little embarrassment. It is time that they demanded equal treatment for their nationals at all levels - and got it without any questions being asked!
I had already been to some seven or eight European countries without one, so which exotic destination would you imagine required me to have a visa?
Answer (and this no longer applies incidentally) was .... the United States of America! Special relationship or no they were not prepared to let me in without the document in question. This proved no real problem though. I obtained the application form in advance, duly filled it out, and headed off to London, where I dropped it off at the US Embassy in the morning and collected it from there the same afternoon.
Obviously nothing about me was suspicious. The only potential pitfall was the question on the form: "Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?". Everyone was bound to answer "No". Rabid Trotskyists (the more logical description for radicals of the period - Communists were definitely old hat!) would, for instance, regard the CP as a conservative leaning organisation!
Interestingly there was no question as to whether I had ever been a Nazi, but anyway, move on.
The visa served me well twice - both times crossing from Canada (for which country I did not need a visa!) to the US. Once you had it, you did not need to reapply - so when I went back in 1983, I could flash the old visa upon entry. These days (see also above) citizens from certain allied countries are excluded from the need to have one. Which is all well and good and the way it should be where friends are concerned (OK, as a result the likes of Richard Reid got in without a visa, as would Anjem Choudary, if other factors were not involved).
This requirement to obtain a visa is though subject to inconsistencies where countries are concerned. Take Thailand for example. A European who wants to go to Thailand for wharrever reason can enter the country for four weeks without needing a visa. The Thais regard tourism as a very important source of income, and are not too keen to put off visitors coming to enjoy the beaches and the culture. That it also has allowed in more than a few dubious individuals looking for sexual thrills - well that is the risk that has be taken, although increasingly draconian sentences have been put in place for foreign paedophiles who commit offences.
Anyway if the Thais allow Europeans in for four weeks without a visa, you would think that European countries would reciprocate, right?
There are three levels of reply for this: no, no and no!
Someone coming from Thailand to a European country will require a visa - at least in those countries with which I am most familiar (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Belgium). The type of visa will depend upon the purpose (business, student, tourist).
The purpose - well that depends upon interpretation. Some would claim that it is in the entrant's interests (the authorities do not want to allow young women to be exploited as prostitutes for example). This sounds laudable enough, although there is the sense of racial profiling and trying to keep "coloured" immigrants out - well they would certainly want to stay over the time usw. This can lead to some fairly difficult protracted discussions at immigration control, particularly if the visitor has a limited command of English or the native tongue of the country entered.
As with Thai visitors, so with visitors from other countries that are "visa" countries. Though it would not be surprising if the residents of some countries were treated with more suspicion that those of others. One would imagine that a Thai resident might face a bit less hassle than a resident of Pakistan for example.This isn't supposed to happen like that, but ....
Once inside the Schengen zone, that is more or less it. In theory France expects visas from visitors from some countries while Germany may allow them access with a passport only. So checks are made on trains between the two countries occasionally. The same seems to apply between Germany and the Netherlands.
The UK is not of course a member of the Schengen agreement, so a visitor to Germany will need a totally different set-up for entering the UK. A constant source of frustration to me personally is the fact that my wife has a permanent resident permit for Germany and can travel to 22 other European countries (including non-EU Switzerland and Norway) without a separate visa, but still needs one for the UK. And this despite the fact that she is married to a British citizen (an ethnically white European British citizen whose ancestors arrived as illegal immigrants to England on the Viking longboats some 1200-1300 years ago!).
If I want to take her to the UK (as my wife, not as a lady of the night who will provide me an income - let us make that point clear!), she needs a visa. The standard tourist visa costs 95 Euro and lasts six months. There is the possible 10-year visa which costs a ridiculous 882 Euro! We have spent a total of 6 days in the UK in the 11 years that we have been married, and spending even 95 Euro strikes me as outrageous, particularly when I can take her to Norway or Holland or France for nothing - her passport and German residence permit being sufficient.
What was even more ridiculous in 2008 (and I do not know whether this has changed) was the fact that you could not apply for a visa by post any more - even if you had had one before! You had to attend an interview in Düsseldorf in person! Which meant another 90 Euro in travel costs for the return journey by train (and 2 and a half hours travel time). For someone living in Garmisch-Partenkirchen or Rostock, that would be a much longer and more expensive journey.
It is a grotesque waste of money (and we do not have a lot spare to waste on nonsense of this ilk). And frankly insulting, and typical nonsensical British insularity!
What really surprises me is that, as I have married a non-UK national and live outside the country, that they do not want me to have a visa as well! Get an EXP (UKIP to the idiots who support it) government some time, they may even come up with that idea.
There really should be a standardisation of visa awards, so that they reflect the nature of the agreement both ways. The fact the Thais among others allow themselves to be treated like suckers while opening their doors to foreign visitors for four weeks without all this nonsense causes me personally no little embarrassment. It is time that they demanded equal treatment for their nationals at all levels - and got it without any questions being asked!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)