The population of Greece has been systematically mislead to believe that the austerity measures under which it has been suffering for well nigh 8 years is the direct result of strict and forbidding creditors, a hostile IMF, and inflexible Germans, all hell-bent on punishing spendthrift Greeks.
The media report on pressure for more austerity (the contrary is true)and whenever agreement is close, politicians never fail to propagate their personal success and the end of austerity.
In the wake of fresh austerity and danger of Grexit, for example, the present Prime Minister
messages: "the spring of growth is here, our efforts are now rewarded". A
few days later, pensions are cut and employers cost increases sending a
new wave of people to unemployment.
Remind of you of Dr Goebbels?
The difference with Goebbels is not in the language but in the morass of financial support; Goebbels and his pack of merry cutthroats didn't have the euro-backing.
On the other hand, Goebbels and his pack used laws, regulations, and the courts to expropriate money from chosen parts of the population.
This is another lesson the Greek government seems to have assimilated. The present Greek government is doing likewise: high taxes as of middle incomes ("our voters don't earn that much"), tripling of medical costs for contractors, freezing bank accounts at whim, fines imposed with lip service paid to due course... administrative courts rulings miraculously in favour of the Greek state in 97.5% of cases!
So, misinformation is rampant and it has been around for so long that people, naturally, believe it. It is the others who are hell-bent on eradicating us from the planet! It is, a plot!
Presently, this same siren song is being touted as the Greek
government negotiates with reps from the creditors (known as "troika" or
"institutions") on how FEW reforms it can get away with this time,
before the creditors release another dose of cash. All will be well when
the greenbacks hit the deep pockets of the Greek governmental
money-eating abyss.
And then, things will be OK for a while, until the next episode of series 8 of "Greece Crisis".
Coming 馃敎
Greece is lucky in a way; the creditors are pressing for reform which means that their agenda happily coincides with the country's collective well-being to a certain extent.
Greece is unlucky in that its governments prefer to impose heavy austerity and avoid reforming the Public Sector, monopolies, the dysfunctional justice system; or to improve the educational system - just to cite one example.
The creditors press for labour law reform, allowing more flexibility in
recruiting and redundancies; the creditors suggest lowering taxes levels
for a more just distribution.
The Greek government responds with increased taxes, a cut in pensions, lowering medical cover for its citizens.
Inhabitants of Greece are unlucky, in that Greece's governments have proven impervious to pressure to help their country as a whole. Instead Greece's governments prefer to focus on protecting pressure group interests; their voters' vested interests, cronies, party friends and, presumably, in prolonging as much as possible their stay in power and their hands in the till.
For example, Greek governments are ferociously opposed to savings by reducing the Public Sector and public spending; instead, they have created savings by increasing the tax burden to the extent that they have crippled the economy. Inequality rises high in Greece: 10% of taxpayers in Greece account for 65% of total.
It is a pity that no-one seems capable of explaining this to the people. 馃挬馃挬馃挬馃挬馃挬馃挬馃挬馃挬馃挬
Thursday, 9 March 2017
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Today's Fascists and Extremists Aren't All Extreme Right Wing...
...At least not in Greece.
The mayor of Maroussi (an Athenian suburb), a man called Patoulis, proceeded to freeze the bank accounts of 30,000 persons for not paying their parking tickets in Marousi!
No doubt, Stalin would had approved. Patoulis is his sort of guy: freeze accounts for a parking ticket, shoot the bast*s for not using their toothbrush! (Had he thought that his constituents had bank accounts or cars, for that matter).
Way to go!
On the other hand, I bet Hitler hadn't thought of that. (Maybe, if you were jewish?)
Anyway, it seems that the prize of chief dunce politician goes to George Patoulis. May his constituents enjoy him for ever more!
Other than the jest, one cannot help but shudder at what he does to people who owe him money personally... Should we fear baseball bats and recall scenes from "the Godfather"? Or, would it be something creative coming out of a Guy Richie movie.
The mayor of Maroussi (an Athenian suburb), a man called Patoulis, proceeded to freeze the bank accounts of 30,000 persons for not paying their parking tickets in Marousi!
No doubt, Stalin would had approved. Patoulis is his sort of guy: freeze accounts for a parking ticket, shoot the bast*s for not using their toothbrush! (Had he thought that his constituents had bank accounts or cars, for that matter).
Way to go!
On the other hand, I bet Hitler hadn't thought of that. (Maybe, if you were jewish?)
Anyway, it seems that the prize of chief dunce politician goes to George Patoulis. May his constituents enjoy him for ever more!
Other than the jest, one cannot help but shudder at what he does to people who owe him money personally... Should we fear baseball bats and recall scenes from "the Godfather"? Or, would it be something creative coming out of a Guy Richie movie.
Friday, 13 January 2017
Great Conductors: Strange People?
I just watched John Freeman's interview of the great Otto Klemperer, for the nth time. While the interview is mostly shallow and the questions sometimes downright silly (are you happy? Do you like American comfort...") it got me thinking.
Can a great conductor be a "normal" person in the conventional sense of the word - i.e. following a 9-5 or 6 job, going out with the kids, attending family lunches on Sundays, watching television and a movie at night, and reading (that's already stretching conventionality) a thriller or two?
Or is it that conductor like Klemperer or his mentor, Mahler, are something of a misfit in the conventional sense and losing much of the rites of conventionality gain that much more in energy, resilience, and brilliance to devote to their talent?
I think it is the latter, at least with many of the great conductors of the early and mid 20th century. There are the superstars of course: the pioneering maestro v Karajan springs to mind as does the younger and equally ubiquitous, Dudamel. The stardom -- which in and of itself is most welcome for having boosted the music and made it and its interpreters far more globally popular than ever before, is one thing,. But is there much more to it than that -- i.e. genius is an infinite capacity for hard work and a little extra.
And great conductors are great because they bring out that little extra extra, they exemplify what it is to take a work of genius and take it further.
That must be it, I think.
Or I wish to think...
Can a great conductor be a "normal" person in the conventional sense of the word - i.e. following a 9-5 or 6 job, going out with the kids, attending family lunches on Sundays, watching television and a movie at night, and reading (that's already stretching conventionality) a thriller or two?
Or is it that conductor like Klemperer or his mentor, Mahler, are something of a misfit in the conventional sense and losing much of the rites of conventionality gain that much more in energy, resilience, and brilliance to devote to their talent?
I think it is the latter, at least with many of the great conductors of the early and mid 20th century. There are the superstars of course: the pioneering maestro v Karajan springs to mind as does the younger and equally ubiquitous, Dudamel. The stardom -- which in and of itself is most welcome for having boosted the music and made it and its interpreters far more globally popular than ever before, is one thing,. But is there much more to it than that -- i.e. genius is an infinite capacity for hard work and a little extra.
And great conductors are great because they bring out that little extra extra, they exemplify what it is to take a work of genius and take it further.
That must be it, I think.
Or I wish to think...
Wednesday, 14 December 2016
The "Truth About Greece" and the Nth Bail Out...
...which is soon to be superseded by the N+1 loan or bail-out or call it whatever you like, whereby EU (& possibly IMF) dish out money so that Greece can continue to support what is arguably the most expensive and least productive Public Sector in modern history .
In a recent blog article (here for an overview), IMF's P. Thomsen claimed that the IMF is not the one asking for more austerity in Greece and imposing crippling taxes. That, on the contrary, Greece would benefit from a more investment-friendly programme; and that there is a lot of work to be done on the fiscal side.
So much is true. I cannot fault Thomsen on the above in the least. After all, it IS the Greek government that is imposing taxes and collecting on them. It is the Greek government that resorts to pensions cuts, cuts in medical cover and education, rather than reduce the Public Sector payroll and mismanagement.
It is the Greek government that chooses to cut pensions to poverty level rather than work selectively: 7% of pensions in Greece account for 45% of the spending; it is the Greek government that is maintaining a largely unproductive public & semi-public sector at a crippling cost; it is the Greek government that is further raising taxes this year while talking about inspiring and supporting growth; it is the Greek government that is not reviewing the country's inflexible labour law that, for example, can cost an employer a hefty fine simply because someone called in sick and another employee came in the sick one's place (up to euro 10k per case); it is the Greek government that has no survival minimum, no unemployment benefits for +80% of unemployed; best case scenario, it takes 1 month to actually register a new company and many pages in hard copy; total taxes and contributions in case of profit distribution is 69-72%; a license to operate a cafe in a northern suburb of Athens costs between 1500 - 3000 euro in "consideration money". There are 1,5 million unemployed, 1.0 million public sector employees, municipal employees, contractors, and state-owned company employees of all sorts, and ~2.0 million employed in the private sector who are asked to create value to support the country; it is not working.
It is unfortunate that a country that has very low spending on unemployment benefits (minimum), no survival minimum, poor (and thereby inexpensive) medical services and underpaid medical personnel, very low educational spending, etc, should be incapable of balancing out its imbalances.
So, Thomsen is right - and one wonders how much he and his team actually know about what is really going on behind the scenes in Greece.
And when information such as the above comes to light, the government is quick to respond defensively, lashing out in all directions.
Then, the matter is quickly buried and life goes on: the next Troika / "institutions" evaluation, the negotiations, suppliers to the Public sector remain unpaid, etc etc, the evaluation goes through with agreement on "compromise measures" and another lump of money is released;
and thus the story goes!
馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚
In a recent blog article (here for an overview), IMF's P. Thomsen claimed that the IMF is not the one asking for more austerity in Greece and imposing crippling taxes. That, on the contrary, Greece would benefit from a more investment-friendly programme; and that there is a lot of work to be done on the fiscal side.
So much is true. I cannot fault Thomsen on the above in the least. After all, it IS the Greek government that is imposing taxes and collecting on them. It is the Greek government that resorts to pensions cuts, cuts in medical cover and education, rather than reduce the Public Sector payroll and mismanagement.
It is the Greek government that chooses to cut pensions to poverty level rather than work selectively: 7% of pensions in Greece account for 45% of the spending; it is the Greek government that is maintaining a largely unproductive public & semi-public sector at a crippling cost; it is the Greek government that is further raising taxes this year while talking about inspiring and supporting growth; it is the Greek government that is not reviewing the country's inflexible labour law that, for example, can cost an employer a hefty fine simply because someone called in sick and another employee came in the sick one's place (up to euro 10k per case); it is the Greek government that has no survival minimum, no unemployment benefits for +80% of unemployed; best case scenario, it takes 1 month to actually register a new company and many pages in hard copy; total taxes and contributions in case of profit distribution is 69-72%; a license to operate a cafe in a northern suburb of Athens costs between 1500 - 3000 euro in "consideration money". There are 1,5 million unemployed, 1.0 million public sector employees, municipal employees, contractors, and state-owned company employees of all sorts, and ~2.0 million employed in the private sector who are asked to create value to support the country; it is not working.
It is unfortunate that a country that has very low spending on unemployment benefits (minimum), no survival minimum, poor (and thereby inexpensive) medical services and underpaid medical personnel, very low educational spending, etc, should be incapable of balancing out its imbalances.
So, Thomsen is right - and one wonders how much he and his team actually know about what is really going on behind the scenes in Greece.
And when information such as the above comes to light, the government is quick to respond defensively, lashing out in all directions.
Then, the matter is quickly buried and life goes on: the next Troika / "institutions" evaluation, the negotiations, suppliers to the Public sector remain unpaid, etc etc, the evaluation goes through with agreement on "compromise measures" and another lump of money is released;
and thus the story goes!
馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚馃懚
Thursday, 17 November 2016
Barak Obama Delivers a Speech at the Niarchos Cultural Centre in Athens, Greece
His last speech on foreign soil as President of the US.
Labelled "remarks" by the White House PR team, the speech was mostly about democracy (after all, a Greek word - and an Athenian invention) and equality.
So I listened to it.
Unsurprisingly, it was very well delivered - President Obama is a master of public speaking; expressive, simple, always with a touch of humour and accessible, friendly.
As to the content, it was in a word, simple as well. It was an excellent speech to motivate youth; I would have liked my son to be there, not only for the thrill of listening to the President of the US speak to you but also because what he says is easy to grasp and that makes youth feel they have communicated, albeit remotely, with an important personality of human history.
In all its simplicity, the speech did have some somewhat daring highlights. For one, Barak Obama did say that politicians know there are things to do - but they lack the political courage to implement them; he also mentioned that investment flow into countries that make things easier for investors - manifestly not the case of Greece at present, for example. On another plain, he did suggest that democracies do not move forward in a linear manner, but sometimes move backward in order to move forward again. And he did not forget to mention that, in a democracy all people are created equal regardless of their differences (which differences, especially economy-related, are exacerbated by the effects of global access to information). The latter may be a diplomatic reference to his successor, who extolled different ideals during his campaign.
Interestingly, he called the European Union one of the "most important political achievements of the 20th century". The audience clapped (the euro-confused Greek government remained silent, fortunately.)
President Obama also pointed out (in more diplomatic terms) that democracy is a global, historical and powerful brand name, older than Christianity itself, invented and first implemented in (ancient) Athens. So Athens is the cradle of democracy, a fact that, presumably, many Greeks and most Greek politicians are happy to forget.
Other than the personal interest of the President, one wonders what the purpose of this visit was. It certainly offered Greece another 15 mins of fame, positive fame this time round. From another standpoint, that of the citizen, his presence and his speeches did make people proud. So in all, Greece reaped psychological benefit. Which, in a sense, is non negligible.
President Obama at the Acropolis of Athens, 16th November 2016 (photo from the White House)
And for all its simplicity, his remarks had a positive effect on many people, not only those present at the Niarchos Foundation. For that too, people in Greece are grateful.
In a nutshell, it would seem that the US President made Greeks a present: the last visit of the first non white President of the United States of America, was in Greece. And that is now a part of history.
Let's hope he enjoyed the visit as well!
Labelled "remarks" by the White House PR team, the speech was mostly about democracy (after all, a Greek word - and an Athenian invention) and equality.
So I listened to it.
Unsurprisingly, it was very well delivered - President Obama is a master of public speaking; expressive, simple, always with a touch of humour and accessible, friendly.
As to the content, it was in a word, simple as well. It was an excellent speech to motivate youth; I would have liked my son to be there, not only for the thrill of listening to the President of the US speak to you but also because what he says is easy to grasp and that makes youth feel they have communicated, albeit remotely, with an important personality of human history.
In all its simplicity, the speech did have some somewhat daring highlights. For one, Barak Obama did say that politicians know there are things to do - but they lack the political courage to implement them; he also mentioned that investment flow into countries that make things easier for investors - manifestly not the case of Greece at present, for example. On another plain, he did suggest that democracies do not move forward in a linear manner, but sometimes move backward in order to move forward again. And he did not forget to mention that, in a democracy all people are created equal regardless of their differences (which differences, especially economy-related, are exacerbated by the effects of global access to information). The latter may be a diplomatic reference to his successor, who extolled different ideals during his campaign.
Interestingly, he called the European Union one of the "most important political achievements of the 20th century". The audience clapped (the euro-confused Greek government remained silent, fortunately.)
President Obama also pointed out (in more diplomatic terms) that democracy is a global, historical and powerful brand name, older than Christianity itself, invented and first implemented in (ancient) Athens. So Athens is the cradle of democracy, a fact that, presumably, many Greeks and most Greek politicians are happy to forget.
Other than the personal interest of the President, one wonders what the purpose of this visit was. It certainly offered Greece another 15 mins of fame, positive fame this time round. From another standpoint, that of the citizen, his presence and his speeches did make people proud. So in all, Greece reaped psychological benefit. Which, in a sense, is non negligible.
President Obama at the Acropolis of Athens, 16th November 2016 (photo from the White House)
And for all its simplicity, his remarks had a positive effect on many people, not only those present at the Niarchos Foundation. For that too, people in Greece are grateful.
In a nutshell, it would seem that the US President made Greeks a present: the last visit of the first non white President of the United States of America, was in Greece. And that is now a part of history.
Let's hope he enjoyed the visit as well!
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Advice to Take On A Spelling Journey
Today I should probably be babbling about the latest US elections, congratulating my American friends on their new president or commiserating with them for having the lesser votes take the spoils (Ms Clinton had slightly more votes in her favour than Mr Trump). But I do not vote in the US so there is not for me to say anything other than, "best of luck!" and, "you never know!"
As a side remark inspired by these US elections, most European countries excepting the strict north are blessed with idiotic politicians anyway; we seem to be suffering in the REIGN of the MORON in many European countries, especially in the south.
As a diversion, I thought I would delve in spelling instead.
And begin with the ubiquitous apostrophe: ' Especially as it confers with s, along with other considerations.
There is a widespread misuse of this apostrophe with the consequent incomprehensible results in the text being offered -- so much so, that it could be intentional, or a fad. But there is no indication of a fashion trend for misusing the apostrophe, so it must be illiteracy. Either that or a glitch in the spell-checker, which comes back to illiteracy -- of the programmer.
Here is a variety of apostrophes:
IT + S:
It's = it is OR it has. Nothing else. As in, "it's a very nice day today", "it's been a long time",
Its = possessive that which belongs to it: "it's been the longest game in its history", "the sun shone, ITS rays reflecting off the silver...". NO apostrophe when it mes to the word "it".
Use an apostrophe to show possession:
We use an apostrophe to show possession: when the possessor is singular, the ' goes before the s. When plural, after the plural "s". The exception is (1) when the plural word itself does NOT end in an s: i.e., children, people,OR (2) a non-plural word ending in an "s".
John's car= the car that belongs to John.
Julia's bedroom= i.e. the bedroom attributed to Julia.
The car's upholstery= the upholstery of that car.
The voters' response= the response of many voters
The voter's response= the response of one voter
(1)"The men's chambers"= chambers for many men
(2) "Charles' latest purchase is a bicycle..."
Apostrophe with plurals:
The plural is usually formed by adding an "s" at the end. There is NO apostrophe. No exceptions! To use an apostrophe is a superlative blunder.
One car. Many cars. One girl. Two girls. "Pearls melt in vinegar". "The results of this election are dire". NO apostrophe for plural.
Contractions:
We use an apostrophe to replace letters in contractions, mostly the words, not, is, have, us, are, will...
IS: "The weather's moody today"= "the weather IS moody today"LET'S= let us
Reminder" you / we + have, are:
-You've= you have, "you've been a good student..."
-YOU'RE= you are, NOT "your":"you're diligent and your marks have gone up..."
-WE'RE= we are "we're sure of our course..."
-WE'VE= we have "we've gone far enough in these fields; Let's turn back..."
Time related (temporal):
All in a day's work"= the work of one day
"Three days' notice"= it is more than one day
"A month's salary"= one month
"Six months' bonus"= many months
I hope this can be of some little use to some people, somewhat interested in ridding their texts of common mistakes...
As a side remark inspired by these US elections, most European countries excepting the strict north are blessed with idiotic politicians anyway; we seem to be suffering in the REIGN of the MORON in many European countries, especially in the south.
As a diversion, I thought I would delve in spelling instead.
And begin with the ubiquitous apostrophe: ' Especially as it confers with s, along with other considerations.
There is a widespread misuse of this apostrophe with the consequent incomprehensible results in the text being offered -- so much so, that it could be intentional, or a fad. But there is no indication of a fashion trend for misusing the apostrophe, so it must be illiteracy. Either that or a glitch in the spell-checker, which comes back to illiteracy -- of the programmer.
Here is a variety of apostrophes:
IT + S:
It's = it is OR it has. Nothing else. As in, "it's a very nice day today", "it's been a long time",
Its = possessive that which belongs to it: "it's been the longest game in its history", "the sun shone, ITS rays reflecting off the silver...". NO apostrophe when it mes to the word "it".
Use an apostrophe to show possession:
We use an apostrophe to show possession: when the possessor is singular, the ' goes before the s. When plural, after the plural "s". The exception is (1) when the plural word itself does NOT end in an s: i.e., children, people,OR (2) a non-plural word ending in an "s".
John's car= the car that belongs to John.
Julia's bedroom= i.e. the bedroom attributed to Julia.
The car's upholstery= the upholstery of that car.
The voters' response= the response of many voters
The voter's response= the response of one voter
(1)"The men's chambers"= chambers for many men
(2) "Charles' latest purchase is a bicycle..."
Apostrophe with plurals:
The plural is usually formed by adding an "s" at the end. There is NO apostrophe. No exceptions! To use an apostrophe is a superlative blunder.
One car. Many cars. One girl. Two girls. "Pearls melt in vinegar". "The results of this election are dire". NO apostrophe for plural.
Contractions:
We use an apostrophe to replace letters in contractions, mostly the words, not, is, have, us, are, will...
| aren't | are not |
| can't | cannot |
| couldn't | could not |
| didn't | did not |
| doesn't | does not |
| don't | do not |
| hadn't | had not |
| hasn't | has not |
| haven't | have not |
| he'd | he had, he would |
| he'll | he will, he shall |
| he's | he is, he has |
| I'd | I had, I would |
| I'll | I will, I shall |
| I'm | I am |
| I've | I have |
| isn't | is not |
| it's | it is, it has |
| let's | let us |
| mustn't | must not |
| shan't | shall not |
| she'd | she had, she would |
| she'll | she will, she shall |
| she's | she is, she has |
| shouldn't | should not |
| that's | that is, that has |
| there's | there is, there has |
| they'd | they had, they would |
| they'll | they will, they shall |
| they're | they are |
| they've | they have |
| we'd | we had, we would |
| we're | we are |
| we've | we have |
| weren't | were not |
| what'll | what will, what shall |
| what're | what are |
| what's | what is, what has |
| what've | what have |
| where's | where is, where has |
| who'd | who had, who would |
| who'll | who will, who shall |
| who're | who are |
| who's | who is, who has |
| who've | who have |
| won't | will not |
| wouldn't | would not |
| you'd | you had, you would |
| you'll | you will, you shall |
| you're | you are |
| you've | you have |
Reminder" you / we + have, are:
-You've= you have, "you've been a good student..."
-YOU'RE= you are, NOT "your":"you're diligent and your marks have gone up..."
-WE'RE= we are "we're sure of our course..."
-WE'VE= we have "we've gone far enough in these fields; Let's turn back..."
Time related (temporal):
All in a day's work"= the work of one day
"Three days' notice"= it is more than one day
"A month's salary"= one month
"Six months' bonus"= many months
I hope this can be of some little use to some people, somewhat interested in ridding their texts of common mistakes...
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Politically Correct
I read somewhere that two footbal players in Czech, caught making sexist remarks, were punished (to train with the womens' team).
By so doing, the team management showed us that they are sensitive to eradicate sexist attitudes and are decisive about it. In turn, the players accepted their plight, proving they are aware of their transgression.
So, in all, what has been achieved is a public chastisement of a opprobious remark about women said in public -- or dangerously close to public.
We did not eradicate the sexist thought, we punished people for saying it...
Of course any negative, largely unwarranted remark, based on offensive stereotypes, is hurtful to the victim of the remark. So, not saying something is better than its actionable counterpart; at least it spares the victims the public humility.
It also spares the unsuspecting (children, for example) from being gratuitously introduced to such human intolerance.
But what are we doing about eradicating such thoughts? What can we do? Not much, I don't think:
1) it's a matter of social education and this is impossible to ontrol -- and, do we want to?
2) It's a matter of changing peoples' perception of reality and their acceptance of the differences between themselves andtheir surroundings (for that is, basically, the foundation of many politically incorrect remarks).
3) It's a matter of making the phrase "politically incorrect", presently no more than marketing blurb pushed to extremes in its application game, mean something and be perceived as meaning something: i.e. to attain a position of respect.
4) Does not look like it's going to happen tomorrow. Too much control has never succeede; it also requires a melt-down of democracy (which is happening, but very slowly).
For now let's contend with what we have -- a sensure on expressing sexist & racist opinion publically.
By so doing, the team management showed us that they are sensitive to eradicate sexist attitudes and are decisive about it. In turn, the players accepted their plight, proving they are aware of their transgression.
So, in all, what has been achieved is a public chastisement of a opprobious remark about women said in public -- or dangerously close to public.
We did not eradicate the sexist thought, we punished people for saying it...
Of course any negative, largely unwarranted remark, based on offensive stereotypes, is hurtful to the victim of the remark. So, not saying something is better than its actionable counterpart; at least it spares the victims the public humility.
It also spares the unsuspecting (children, for example) from being gratuitously introduced to such human intolerance.
But what are we doing about eradicating such thoughts? What can we do? Not much, I don't think:
1) it's a matter of social education and this is impossible to ontrol -- and, do we want to?
2) It's a matter of changing peoples' perception of reality and their acceptance of the differences between themselves andtheir surroundings (for that is, basically, the foundation of many politically incorrect remarks).
3) It's a matter of making the phrase "politically incorrect", presently no more than marketing blurb pushed to extremes in its application game, mean something and be perceived as meaning something: i.e. to attain a position of respect.
4) Does not look like it's going to happen tomorrow. Too much control has never succeede; it also requires a melt-down of democracy (which is happening, but very slowly).
For now let's contend with what we have -- a sensure on expressing sexist & racist opinion publically.
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
Three Little Pigs
A blog can be any number of things to any one of us. For many it is many things: a diary, a public search for company, an antidote to loneliness, literary exhibitionism, opening up to the world, widening the reach - throwing the written voice as far as it will go, garnering interest and building a private virtual harem of followers...
In all cases I can think, however, the commonality is in the sharing. Maybe there is a latent wish to be accepted, to have someone respon, "yes, I can identify with that," or, "I understand you."
I wonder, if acceptance it is, is this acceptance real or virtual? Does the acceptance go all the way, i.e. have I found a kindred soul in each and every -- or some of the -- written pats on the back?
And where do the three little pigs come in -- I don;t really know, it just sounded good to me today and I wrote it quickly before it slipped my mind!
Of course, seen from the story cantage point, the little pigs sought to protect themselves from the outsidewhile the blogger is inviting the outside in.
I would upload a pig, but I the image uploads do not work these days!
In all cases I can think, however, the commonality is in the sharing. Maybe there is a latent wish to be accepted, to have someone respon, "yes, I can identify with that," or, "I understand you."
I wonder, if acceptance it is, is this acceptance real or virtual? Does the acceptance go all the way, i.e. have I found a kindred soul in each and every -- or some of the -- written pats on the back?
And where do the three little pigs come in -- I don;t really know, it just sounded good to me today and I wrote it quickly before it slipped my mind!
Of course, seen from the story cantage point, the little pigs sought to protect themselves from the outsidewhile the blogger is inviting the outside in.
I would upload a pig, but I the image uploads do not work these days!
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
The Right Partner... and the Balance
I had an excremental day at work yesterday. Late afternoon I watched a few episodes of a popular TV series and one of them had to do with a couple -- a partnership of sorts. It got me thinking.
We all suspect and some of us (very fortunate) know first hand, that being with the right partner is one of the highest blessings.
Together we are more than the sum of the parts; an explosive togetherness has exponential power to do things and achieve greatness for the partnership.
So, the right partner is the one that makes us feel better, stronger, worthier and, importantly, more ourselves -- the partnership that reveals and enhances our strengths. There is balance between the two.
One could go on...
But, what happens when you are in a lesser partnership? One that does not add; one that does not inspire either partners to go beyond themselves; or a one-sided partnership where one does not provide support in any palpable way? There is imbalance...
If it is in business, the result is catastrophe: one side's contribution constitutes only cost, financial and psychological.
If it is in a personal relationship, the result is emotional sterility.
In both cases the presence of the inactive part becomes an obstacle to the other partner to move on.
An impasse.
The solution may be a dissolution or it may be a rekindling the partnership energy. Whichever it is, it is the other partner's imperative to act.
Because the one draining the partnership has found an obvious comfort zone and will not budge.
It is up to the other partner to bring about a new, positive, balance to the situation: create a new partnership or eliminate the drain of the existing one; recreate harmony.
Bring about a new balance.
We all suspect and some of us (very fortunate) know first hand, that being with the right partner is one of the highest blessings.
Together we are more than the sum of the parts; an explosive togetherness has exponential power to do things and achieve greatness for the partnership.
So, the right partner is the one that makes us feel better, stronger, worthier and, importantly, more ourselves -- the partnership that reveals and enhances our strengths. There is balance between the two.
One could go on...
But, what happens when you are in a lesser partnership? One that does not add; one that does not inspire either partners to go beyond themselves; or a one-sided partnership where one does not provide support in any palpable way? There is imbalance...
If it is in business, the result is catastrophe: one side's contribution constitutes only cost, financial and psychological.
If it is in a personal relationship, the result is emotional sterility.
In both cases the presence of the inactive part becomes an obstacle to the other partner to move on.
An impasse.
The solution may be a dissolution or it may be a rekindling the partnership energy. Whichever it is, it is the other partner's imperative to act.
Because the one draining the partnership has found an obvious comfort zone and will not budge.
It is up to the other partner to bring about a new, positive, balance to the situation: create a new partnership or eliminate the drain of the existing one; recreate harmony.
Bring about a new balance.
Friday, 23 September 2016
The Little Things In Life
When I was young I believed that the beautiful things that happened to me or the important things that happened to me, were eternal. So, an important moment in life, my life, would be there for eternity. A friend
Until I discovered that moments in time are what we make of them and they last as long as we give them life.
Fortunately.
The good moments live on within us for as long as we want them.
Hopefully, the bad moments just fade away.
Until I discovered that moments in time are what we make of them and they last as long as we give them life.
Fortunately.
The good moments live on within us for as long as we want them.
Hopefully, the bad moments just fade away.
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
The Unalterable Inevitability of Fact
I can argue that the sun is blue until I am blue in the face. Using words anything is possible and anything can be claimed, as politicians have proven (especially "left wing" politicians) throughout history.
But the fact still remains, the sun is what it is whatever the colour claimed.
Reality does change; only perception of reality is tainted...
But the fact still remains, the sun is what it is whatever the colour claimed.
Reality does change; only perception of reality is tainted...
 |
| All the rest is trash ! |
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)