Here is an exchange I have had with some American people, regarding the upcoming Presidential election. Salutations and thanks to my correspondents.
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read, "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" pin, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to
someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I 've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.
To which I responded;
I am a Brit and live in the UK. We have, since WW2 lived with socialism in all but name, most of the time.
Let me tell you, my American friends, whatever you call it, socialism doesn't work, unless the givers and receivers are happy with the deal, like the tiny proportion of people who live voluntarily in those mini socialist paradises called old style kibbutzim (in Israel).
I don't have a vote in your election and to me Obama reminds me much more of a handsome, darker version of Jimmy Carter, which is very worrying. But he looks like he's decent and trying to do the right thing, whereas McCain looks a really decent guy, who doesn't have a clue about the economy. What would swing me and most of my fellow Brits to vote for Obama is our total terror of Sarah Palin!
By the way, most of us in the UK love your country and are always fascinated by it, and we want good to happen there, particularly me as I have a daughter who lives there and two grandchildren who are American.
Good luck with the election America, you need it!
All the best, Tony Klinger
Which drew another response;
I am a friend . I enjoyed reading your response. I have a question for you. What scares you about Sarah Palin? She was a Governor of a state. This, in my opinion, gives her more experience of being in charge then Obama. He was a Senator. What does a Senator run? Nothing! I do agree with you. Just curious about the Palin thing. According to people in Alaska, she has a very high approval rating. So she must be doing something right. Obama and Biden just remind me of con men.
In return I sent this;
I have done quite a lot of research on Sarah Palin, who, initially I thought a very attractive person and candidate. There have since been a great many personal anecdotes and interviews about her, which I found disturbing. Being a journalist/ documentary filmmaker by original profession, I am trained to triangulate my sources on the basis that one source might lie, two might distort but three means you have a fair chance of some accuracy. I have so far logged about 20 genuinely worrying instances of her behavior that I find of great concern. I think she does mean well, and I am convinced her intent is genuinely good, but I also think she is armed with very little self-correcting political / personal GPS. I'm not saying positive things about Obama, and I think Biden is a wind bag, (please feel free to read some of my blogs on these men!) but I do think we have to consider what might happen if Ms. Palin were to assume power one day, and that is probable if McCain was to win. There are all kinds of problems beginning to surface in Alaska, which she has tended to run like a mom and pop shop rather than as a democratic state.
Personally I hate to think of what Voltaire said, that a country gets the government it deserves, because that means both our countries must have been doing something pretty bad recently. Perhaps there needed to be a major re-adjustment of how things would be run, and we are still in the middle of that seismic shift. Sadly I don't think any of the candidates is anywhere near as outstanding as we need or, I like to think, warrant. I'm advocating a negative vote, Obama, possibly being a damage limitation exercise in an almost impossible situation. However, we should all remember that your country once faced similar impossible odds and came up with FDR who pretty much saved the Western way of life along with a little fellow my country found at just the right moment, what price a Winston Churchill right now?
Obama and especially Biden give me the same feeling they give you, but, unlike McCain and Palin, they also do seem to know, a little bit of what they're supposed to be doing. Not a great choice though.
I received;
Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed reading them.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
BrandWavesByeBye
Today in the UK we witnessed the ritual public humiliation of those found to affront the public taste. They are Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, two very naughty man boys, Russell now in his thirties and Jonathan in his late forties. Their BBC paymasters suspended them, on full pay. They had broadcast a very offensive radio 2 show and it has created a tsunami of a reaction and become an even bigger issue this week than the credit crunch.
Russell Brand said, “I think it was a really, really silly thing to do. It happened in the spirit of the moment, I didn’t want to upset Andrew Sachs, particularly because I really admire him and his work as an actor. I didn’t want to apologize publicly before because it might seem I was apologizing for the reaction rather to the person I had offended. The reason I hadn’t apologized to Georgina, and I do intend to, is because I’m frankly embarrassed to do so.” It’s a great pity that Brand waited until there was a huge public revulsion before he offered a proper and fulsome apology.
Brand then resigned from his radio show. A contrite looking Brand went on to say, “ I was silly enough to speak without thinking, and I shouldn’t have done so. I apologize to Andrew Sachs for any upset I might have caused him.”
Andrew Sachs, the main offended party said, “These are two performers, I’m a performer, sometimes, you get it very wrong, and then you have to do better.” His granddaughter, Georgina, who Brand and Ross had said intimate things about said, “I’m thrilled because justice has been done.”
Ross’s Friday show recording was cancelled tonight. As Ross said, “It was juvenile and a stupid error of judgment.”
Of course something had to be done, and seen to be done. I called for the dismissal of both these men for their outrageous, illegal and obscene phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs. I won’t recount the whole incident; you can look up my previous blog, and the millions of other articles and blogs that this controversy has generated in the last days.
Suffice it to say that the men have, apparently now realized that they have really screwed up. The BBC went into full grovel mode, with a succession of their middle and finally most senior management issuing total and self abasing apologizes.
Of course this was too little and too late. The BBC has been behind the curve on this issue throughout, which is incredible in these days of emergency preparedness for any and all contingencies. If they had dealt promptly with this unfolding problem would have been diminished to almost no significance.
As it is the number of complaints to the BBC has, so far, topped 27,000 with something like 99.5% apparently against Brand and Ross. There are also some people, almost all younger, and mostly the more youthful demographic of radio 1, who argue that these are just edgy comedians pushing at the limits of what’s acceptable as modern comedy is meant to do.
Now the BBC must hold a very fast enquiry and tell us how this pre-recorded program was allowed on air?
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross were clearly bouncing off each other, and the safety net is supposed to be the production team.
So how was it then possible that the producer could play this material and then OK it for broadcast?
What kind of training did this producer receive?
How could the producer have made this judgment after telephoning Andrew Sachs to discuss his feelings about what was proposed, and despite Sachs asking the producer not to broadcast it?
Why were there no BBC guidelines for this scenario in place for an obviously inexperienced producer?
It’s bad enough that this kind of show could get on air, let’s make certain it doesn’t happen again. But we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We still want comedy, and edgy is fine, but that doesn’t mean its open season on those that can’t defend themselves.
Russell Brand said, “I think it was a really, really silly thing to do. It happened in the spirit of the moment, I didn’t want to upset Andrew Sachs, particularly because I really admire him and his work as an actor. I didn’t want to apologize publicly before because it might seem I was apologizing for the reaction rather to the person I had offended. The reason I hadn’t apologized to Georgina, and I do intend to, is because I’m frankly embarrassed to do so.” It’s a great pity that Brand waited until there was a huge public revulsion before he offered a proper and fulsome apology.
Brand then resigned from his radio show. A contrite looking Brand went on to say, “ I was silly enough to speak without thinking, and I shouldn’t have done so. I apologize to Andrew Sachs for any upset I might have caused him.”
Andrew Sachs, the main offended party said, “These are two performers, I’m a performer, sometimes, you get it very wrong, and then you have to do better.” His granddaughter, Georgina, who Brand and Ross had said intimate things about said, “I’m thrilled because justice has been done.”
Ross’s Friday show recording was cancelled tonight. As Ross said, “It was juvenile and a stupid error of judgment.”
Of course something had to be done, and seen to be done. I called for the dismissal of both these men for their outrageous, illegal and obscene phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs. I won’t recount the whole incident; you can look up my previous blog, and the millions of other articles and blogs that this controversy has generated in the last days.
Suffice it to say that the men have, apparently now realized that they have really screwed up. The BBC went into full grovel mode, with a succession of their middle and finally most senior management issuing total and self abasing apologizes.
Of course this was too little and too late. The BBC has been behind the curve on this issue throughout, which is incredible in these days of emergency preparedness for any and all contingencies. If they had dealt promptly with this unfolding problem would have been diminished to almost no significance.
As it is the number of complaints to the BBC has, so far, topped 27,000 with something like 99.5% apparently against Brand and Ross. There are also some people, almost all younger, and mostly the more youthful demographic of radio 1, who argue that these are just edgy comedians pushing at the limits of what’s acceptable as modern comedy is meant to do.
Now the BBC must hold a very fast enquiry and tell us how this pre-recorded program was allowed on air?
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross were clearly bouncing off each other, and the safety net is supposed to be the production team.
So how was it then possible that the producer could play this material and then OK it for broadcast?
What kind of training did this producer receive?
How could the producer have made this judgment after telephoning Andrew Sachs to discuss his feelings about what was proposed, and despite Sachs asking the producer not to broadcast it?
Why were there no BBC guidelines for this scenario in place for an obviously inexperienced producer?
It’s bad enough that this kind of show could get on air, let’s make certain it doesn’t happen again. But we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We still want comedy, and edgy is fine, but that doesn’t mean its open season on those that can’t defend themselves.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
MygrandchildrenTheFish
My American grand kids called me on the phone from their mum’s car. They were excited because they had both made a giant step forward in the Lenny Krayzelburg swim school of Los Angeles.
Krayzelburg was born to Jewish parents in Odessa (then part of the Soviet Union, now the Ukraine). He and his family left the Soviet Union in 1989 for the United States. They settled in Los Angeles.
Krayzelburg's family was dirt poor. He took the bus and then walked 45 minutes each way to his swimming practice, and didn't arrive home until 9:30 each night. In addition, he couldn’t initially speak English, which was vital for him to understand his coaches' instructions. Thankfully he managed to adapt quickly.
Lenny attended Santa Monica College where he won both the 100 and 200-yard backstroke junior college titles. His coach at Santa Monica recognized his talent and recommended him to the University of Southern California, which he transferred to.
In 1995, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Four years later, he became the first swimmer since 1986 to sweep the backstroke events, 100 m & 200 m, in the World Championships. Later that same month Krayzelburg broke both the 100 and the 200 m world records respectively and was recognized as the top backstroke swimmer in the world and one of the best in the history of this swimming style. He continued to dominate at the Sydney 2000 Olympics backstroke, shattering the Olympic record .He also played an important role in helping the American team win a gold medal in the 4x100 m relay.
If any story every proved the power of an individual to rise above adversity that would be the story of the man whose swim school now teaches my grandchildren how to do their best.
Soli, my nearly 6-year-old grand son came on the line first, and unusually for him he wasn’t eating, and was actually talking when he was handed the phone. He was hugely proud, having been promoted through the ranks to now be the owner of a blue swim hat, which means he is only a white, silver and gold hat from the competition level. I now call him Soli the fish, but I think he wants to be Soli the shark, but we might compromise on Soli the Dolphin.
Perhaps even more proud was Maya, who will be 8 in December. She has already navigated all those other hats and as she told me, with the lofty knowledge only possessed by the very mature young ladies of California, “I get to try out for the competition team on Monday at 7 in the evening poppa, and I’ve only had a golden swim hat for one month, and the other girl trying out is nearly 12 and she’s been a gold cap for about a year, and she’s really big.”
Of course its obvious knowledge that we shared, poppa to granddaughter, that the entire family is part fish in its history. As she knows from family legend passed down to her from her mummy, I was a competition swimmer. So were many members of our family, and as Mrs. Klinger pointed out somewhat forcefully, so were many members of her family. I said to Maya that it’s no surprise she’s good in the water.
All of which is my long-winded and inelegant way of saying there is nothing more wonderful than families, or listening to the innocent joy of accomplishment of young children. All those who say kids don’t like to compete should listen to those kids who quite clearly enjoy doing their best.
I remember being so proud of winning my swimming races, and the sheer thrill of swimming a couple of miles in the sun blessed pool outside the Pez Espada hotel in southern Spain when I was much the same age as Maya is now. What a gift that was, passed on to me by my wonderful family who understood there is something wonderful, that needs to be treasured in striving for physical excellence, and I am proud that my family was able to pass that pleasure on, in tact, to our children, and now they are doing the same for their children.
I am totally convinced that there are also benefits to people who are stretched to their best physically in that they also thrive to their best mentally. Whatever the reason, its wonderful to see the smiles on small kids faces when they feel fulfilled.
It's also a big deal for all those mums and dads who spend time promoting their children towards excellence, without bullying them, to be the best they can be. Without my daughter Sarah spending time several times a week driving the kids to the swimming pool, and waiting for them as long as its necessary, whatever talent they might have would never be discovered. For all those mums and dads, well done!
In a perfect ending to this particular story I just heard that Maya won her place onto the Royal Swim Team and starts competing in her section in the next month or so. As they say in the States, “you go girl!”
Krayzelburg was born to Jewish parents in Odessa (then part of the Soviet Union, now the Ukraine). He and his family left the Soviet Union in 1989 for the United States. They settled in Los Angeles.
Krayzelburg's family was dirt poor. He took the bus and then walked 45 minutes each way to his swimming practice, and didn't arrive home until 9:30 each night. In addition, he couldn’t initially speak English, which was vital for him to understand his coaches' instructions. Thankfully he managed to adapt quickly.
Lenny attended Santa Monica College where he won both the 100 and 200-yard backstroke junior college titles. His coach at Santa Monica recognized his talent and recommended him to the University of Southern California, which he transferred to.
In 1995, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Four years later, he became the first swimmer since 1986 to sweep the backstroke events, 100 m & 200 m, in the World Championships. Later that same month Krayzelburg broke both the 100 and the 200 m world records respectively and was recognized as the top backstroke swimmer in the world and one of the best in the history of this swimming style. He continued to dominate at the Sydney 2000 Olympics backstroke, shattering the Olympic record .He also played an important role in helping the American team win a gold medal in the 4x100 m relay.
If any story every proved the power of an individual to rise above adversity that would be the story of the man whose swim school now teaches my grandchildren how to do their best.
Soli, my nearly 6-year-old grand son came on the line first, and unusually for him he wasn’t eating, and was actually talking when he was handed the phone. He was hugely proud, having been promoted through the ranks to now be the owner of a blue swim hat, which means he is only a white, silver and gold hat from the competition level. I now call him Soli the fish, but I think he wants to be Soli the shark, but we might compromise on Soli the Dolphin.
Perhaps even more proud was Maya, who will be 8 in December. She has already navigated all those other hats and as she told me, with the lofty knowledge only possessed by the very mature young ladies of California, “I get to try out for the competition team on Monday at 7 in the evening poppa, and I’ve only had a golden swim hat for one month, and the other girl trying out is nearly 12 and she’s been a gold cap for about a year, and she’s really big.”
Of course its obvious knowledge that we shared, poppa to granddaughter, that the entire family is part fish in its history. As she knows from family legend passed down to her from her mummy, I was a competition swimmer. So were many members of our family, and as Mrs. Klinger pointed out somewhat forcefully, so were many members of her family. I said to Maya that it’s no surprise she’s good in the water.
All of which is my long-winded and inelegant way of saying there is nothing more wonderful than families, or listening to the innocent joy of accomplishment of young children. All those who say kids don’t like to compete should listen to those kids who quite clearly enjoy doing their best.
I remember being so proud of winning my swimming races, and the sheer thrill of swimming a couple of miles in the sun blessed pool outside the Pez Espada hotel in southern Spain when I was much the same age as Maya is now. What a gift that was, passed on to me by my wonderful family who understood there is something wonderful, that needs to be treasured in striving for physical excellence, and I am proud that my family was able to pass that pleasure on, in tact, to our children, and now they are doing the same for their children.
I am totally convinced that there are also benefits to people who are stretched to their best physically in that they also thrive to their best mentally. Whatever the reason, its wonderful to see the smiles on small kids faces when they feel fulfilled.
It's also a big deal for all those mums and dads who spend time promoting their children towards excellence, without bullying them, to be the best they can be. Without my daughter Sarah spending time several times a week driving the kids to the swimming pool, and waiting for them as long as its necessary, whatever talent they might have would never be discovered. For all those mums and dads, well done!
In a perfect ending to this particular story I just heard that Maya won her place onto the Royal Swim Team and starts competing in her section in the next month or so. As they say in the States, “you go girl!”
Monday, October 27, 2008
40ThingsWeCouldAllDoWithout
This is the list to end all lists, this is the list in which you get to write down all the things you would like to get rid off.
This is not going to be comprehensive, and we might have to revisit it when you’ve all had a look and decided to send me anything you want to add to my list.
So here goes, and I have numbered this list, purely so you can refer to any of the items more easily, to tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
Here is my list of things to remove from our planet.
1. Lists. Yes, I admit that lists are something to lose.
2. I particularly hate those list programs on television.
3. Call centers, this is a no brainer, everyone, even the people in call centers hate them.
4. Banks advertising, when they’re really hiding their money under a blanket in their offices right now.
5. Scotland, when are they going to wake up to the fact that they lose every important time they take the English on?
6. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross for being such rubbish to Andrew Sachs on BBC radio 2 over the weekend. They deserve sacking.
7. Any more films about climate change that make statements without proof or evidence.
8. Any conspiracy clips on You Tube.
9. Music by James Blunt.
10. People parking on Disabled Parking spaces without reason or the correct stickers.
11. People who jump the line or queue.
12. Unsolicited telephone calls.
13. Drizzle, I don’t mind rain or sunshine or even snow, but drizzle is miserable. No one likes it, so let’s ban it outright!
14. Speed limits on motorways, highways etc.
15. Smoking anything ever. Since I stopped about 20 years ago anyone can, and must.
16. Anyone with a higher IQ than me, unless they’re anything to do with aircraft or other means of making me safe when I travel.
17. Anything and anyone that messes with any of my family or friends.
18. All the political parties in the UK with the exception of that chap in the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable, who actually talks sense.
19. People claiming to be Spartacus when it’s obvious that I am Spartacus!
20. All those boring people that claim that they don’t have any time to watch television before they tell you, in detail, about every program.
21. People you care about dying.
22. Pets getting too old.
23. Long terminal illnesses of loved ones.
24. Short shocking illnesses of loved ones.
25. A lack of time to do all the things you wanted to do.
26. Long winter nights.
27. Angry people.
28. Fundamentalists of every hue, race, religion and creed.
29. Folk with bad memories, they cause so many fights.
30. Ignorance.
31. Lunatic drivers.
32. Green vegetables.
33. Almost all folk singers.
34. Morris dancers who bring shame on our otherwise great country by being the silliest people on the planet.
35. People who justify terrorism when it isn’t aimed in their direction.
36. George W Bush for pausing in, all the, wrong places.
37. Sarah Palin for letting down the possibilities for an elected woman in the highest reaches of American government.
38. All the bankers in the world for being greedy, greasy, inefficient and unapologetic.
39. The politicians for not having the good grace to admit that they are also at fault for our present problems.
That will do for now, please feel free to send me your additions or comments. I aim to use the best ideas in a follow up list.
This is not going to be comprehensive, and we might have to revisit it when you’ve all had a look and decided to send me anything you want to add to my list.
So here goes, and I have numbered this list, purely so you can refer to any of the items more easily, to tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
Here is my list of things to remove from our planet.
1. Lists. Yes, I admit that lists are something to lose.
2. I particularly hate those list programs on television.
3. Call centers, this is a no brainer, everyone, even the people in call centers hate them.
4. Banks advertising, when they’re really hiding their money under a blanket in their offices right now.
5. Scotland, when are they going to wake up to the fact that they lose every important time they take the English on?
6. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross for being such rubbish to Andrew Sachs on BBC radio 2 over the weekend. They deserve sacking.
7. Any more films about climate change that make statements without proof or evidence.
8. Any conspiracy clips on You Tube.
9. Music by James Blunt.
10. People parking on Disabled Parking spaces without reason or the correct stickers.
11. People who jump the line or queue.
12. Unsolicited telephone calls.
13. Drizzle, I don’t mind rain or sunshine or even snow, but drizzle is miserable. No one likes it, so let’s ban it outright!
14. Speed limits on motorways, highways etc.
15. Smoking anything ever. Since I stopped about 20 years ago anyone can, and must.
16. Anyone with a higher IQ than me, unless they’re anything to do with aircraft or other means of making me safe when I travel.
17. Anything and anyone that messes with any of my family or friends.
18. All the political parties in the UK with the exception of that chap in the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable, who actually talks sense.
19. People claiming to be Spartacus when it’s obvious that I am Spartacus!
20. All those boring people that claim that they don’t have any time to watch television before they tell you, in detail, about every program.
21. People you care about dying.
22. Pets getting too old.
23. Long terminal illnesses of loved ones.
24. Short shocking illnesses of loved ones.
25. A lack of time to do all the things you wanted to do.
26. Long winter nights.
27. Angry people.
28. Fundamentalists of every hue, race, religion and creed.
29. Folk with bad memories, they cause so many fights.
30. Ignorance.
31. Lunatic drivers.
32. Green vegetables.
33. Almost all folk singers.
34. Morris dancers who bring shame on our otherwise great country by being the silliest people on the planet.
35. People who justify terrorism when it isn’t aimed in their direction.
36. George W Bush for pausing in, all the, wrong places.
37. Sarah Palin for letting down the possibilities for an elected woman in the highest reaches of American government.
38. All the bankers in the world for being greedy, greasy, inefficient and unapologetic.
39. The politicians for not having the good grace to admit that they are also at fault for our present problems.
That will do for now, please feel free to send me your additions or comments. I aim to use the best ideas in a follow up list.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Admissions
In my other main blog at http://www.tonyklinger.co.uk/ I admitted to being the person who caused the entire collapse of the British and world economic system in banking, property, and now the exchange rate collapse of sterling against almost every currency except for the yoghurt based money systems of certain, more remote parts of outer Mongolia.
If I had not purchased that toaster in July, forcing the banks, credit cards and various members of my family into meltdown we would have all remained safe and well.
Those of you in Britain will know of the scandal in which our newly ennobled Lord Mandelson did, when he was just a humble Peter Mandelson, meet a Russian oligarch called Oleg on the latter’s super yacht, moored of a nice, but suspiciously Greek, holiday island. His Lordship was at the time the European Union Commissioner for Trade. Some have thought this a fairly high-ranking job, representing, as it does, the most powerful trading block on the planet.
It appears that although his Lordship’s EU office previously did issue a statement admitting that he and Oleg had met in 2006 and 2007 it has now become apparent that they also met before this, in 2004. No terrible thing if one of you is an oligarch and the other is a Trade Commissioner. The interesting thing is that his Lordship didn’t own up in the first place and, some might claim, intentionally appears to have obfuscated the facts of the meeting. Why would he have done such a thing do you think?
Coincidentally, and these things couldn’t possibly be linked, Oleg, it is claimed, has various business interests in the republic of Montenegro, part of the former Yugoslavia. The EU granting favorable trading conditions to that new country could be worth a couple of billion dollars to the right people at the right time.
Of course, without evidence, no one would make such a claim, particularly when Oleg is clearly a fair minded, democratic oligarch with the highest business and ethical standards.
Needless to say, neither would his Lordship be sullied in any such connection. After all this was all investigated by the EU men in dark suits who check such allegations and he was, we are happy to report, blameless. As was the venerable Lordship the two times he resigned from the British government in the past for other, we imagine, totally baseless allegations of corruption.
Now in addition to questions about his Lordship there are the equally unsavory connections of the on shore host, Nat Rothschild, and one of the other guests, the Conservative Party’s Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. According to Nat, George asked the oligarch for some cash fro the party. This is vigorously denied by George, who says he absolutely did not do so. What appears to be the case was more like; have you Mister Oligarch, got a company who could channel some money to the party? Of course nothing so vulgar as money actually changed hands, but people are seemingly forgetting that it is a crime under British law to ask a foreign national for money in this regard.
So, the time has come for my admission. I was also on a boat in the sunshine a few weeks ago and the gutter press might well have confused my friends and myself for the odd billionaire or two. I now officially admit that we were on a narrow boat on the River Lea with some boy scouts, not a euphemism, and business matters were discussed. Once again I’ve been tumbled. We were discussing the financial possibilities of shopping at Costco and, it has to be said, the price of fuel. We called for a decrease in the cost of petrol. The results was instant and obvious, fuel is now costing considerably less, and as a direct follow on OPEC immediately cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day. This clearly demonstrates how we can all affect the economy.
The UK’s Prime Minister supported Peter when he elevated the man to be a Lord, and to serve the country for the third time, on this occasion as the Minister for Business. How could anyone be churlish enough to question such dynamic decisions? Have you ever heard the old Mafia contention? If it smells like a fish, tastes like a fish, looks like a fish, it’s a fish, that’s how.
Now do you know anyone who could introduce me to Oleg the oligarch?
If I had not purchased that toaster in July, forcing the banks, credit cards and various members of my family into meltdown we would have all remained safe and well.
Those of you in Britain will know of the scandal in which our newly ennobled Lord Mandelson did, when he was just a humble Peter Mandelson, meet a Russian oligarch called Oleg on the latter’s super yacht, moored of a nice, but suspiciously Greek, holiday island. His Lordship was at the time the European Union Commissioner for Trade. Some have thought this a fairly high-ranking job, representing, as it does, the most powerful trading block on the planet.
It appears that although his Lordship’s EU office previously did issue a statement admitting that he and Oleg had met in 2006 and 2007 it has now become apparent that they also met before this, in 2004. No terrible thing if one of you is an oligarch and the other is a Trade Commissioner. The interesting thing is that his Lordship didn’t own up in the first place and, some might claim, intentionally appears to have obfuscated the facts of the meeting. Why would he have done such a thing do you think?
Coincidentally, and these things couldn’t possibly be linked, Oleg, it is claimed, has various business interests in the republic of Montenegro, part of the former Yugoslavia. The EU granting favorable trading conditions to that new country could be worth a couple of billion dollars to the right people at the right time.
Of course, without evidence, no one would make such a claim, particularly when Oleg is clearly a fair minded, democratic oligarch with the highest business and ethical standards.
Needless to say, neither would his Lordship be sullied in any such connection. After all this was all investigated by the EU men in dark suits who check such allegations and he was, we are happy to report, blameless. As was the venerable Lordship the two times he resigned from the British government in the past for other, we imagine, totally baseless allegations of corruption.
Now in addition to questions about his Lordship there are the equally unsavory connections of the on shore host, Nat Rothschild, and one of the other guests, the Conservative Party’s Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. According to Nat, George asked the oligarch for some cash fro the party. This is vigorously denied by George, who says he absolutely did not do so. What appears to be the case was more like; have you Mister Oligarch, got a company who could channel some money to the party? Of course nothing so vulgar as money actually changed hands, but people are seemingly forgetting that it is a crime under British law to ask a foreign national for money in this regard.
So, the time has come for my admission. I was also on a boat in the sunshine a few weeks ago and the gutter press might well have confused my friends and myself for the odd billionaire or two. I now officially admit that we were on a narrow boat on the River Lea with some boy scouts, not a euphemism, and business matters were discussed. Once again I’ve been tumbled. We were discussing the financial possibilities of shopping at Costco and, it has to be said, the price of fuel. We called for a decrease in the cost of petrol. The results was instant and obvious, fuel is now costing considerably less, and as a direct follow on OPEC immediately cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day. This clearly demonstrates how we can all affect the economy.
The UK’s Prime Minister supported Peter when he elevated the man to be a Lord, and to serve the country for the third time, on this occasion as the Minister for Business. How could anyone be churlish enough to question such dynamic decisions? Have you ever heard the old Mafia contention? If it smells like a fish, tastes like a fish, looks like a fish, it’s a fish, that’s how.
Now do you know anyone who could introduce me to Oleg the oligarch?
Friday, October 24, 2008
LyingAsAPolicy
One of the first casualties of decreasing democracy and the rising probability of a dictatorship is the degeneration of the language. This was noticeable during the time when Spiro Agnew was Vice President of the USA during the later stages of the Vietnam War. Then, when someone in the military decided to murder one of their officers they named it “fragging”, which was a euphemism for slinging a fragmentation grenade into the officer’s tent. The results were obvious, but the slang somehow decreased the obscenity of the action.
Many of you will have noticed that this trend has continued and flowered with a whole selection of Big Brother type re-naming that has legitimized a million small cuts into the democratic fabric of our evolved societies.
Now we don’t have terrorists as the media have re-branded them freedom fighters if they find their views acceptable politically and morally, this despite the fact that they might behead some kidnap victims, now recast as prisoners as if this were a legitimate action, or blow up some children as if a 4 or 5 year old is a combatant.
The list of such anomalies is virtually endless and angers so many with rival views that there are many of us, myself included, who have simply stopped watching certain television stations or reading certain newspapers or magazines. Of course this devalues legitimate debate because we no longer put out trust in factual statements put out by the opposition’s media depending on our view.
I was having a fairly important economic debate with an economist yesterday and I quoted some statistics I had gathered the previous day from the fairly left of center Guardian newspaper. Their reaction was to reach for what they considered the more authorative Economist magazine to double check these “facts”. This is a very dangerous trend that shows itself in many ways.
Yesterday it was revealed that certain UK police authorities had mis-reported various crime statistics. Their contention was that they had got the total crime figures correct, but had under estimated the total number in the serious crime column as required by their statistical analysis. However, they went on, the figures they had given did tally with the method used by the courts to calculate these figures, Therefore, in an age where we are already very worried by the seeming rise in crime figures in this country we are told, on the one hand, that the figures were actually considerably worse than those previously listed, but don’t worry, the number of actual crimes committed has really decreased; really?
In the same time frame we were authoritively informed by the government that they have education at the very top of their agenda, and that this is an area of growing achievement. At the same time they abandoned almost their entire testing methodology after insisting it was adopted for the last years of their administration.
We all know of similar financial, health and defense issues to add to our litany of woe. And, instead of addressing the issues and trying to fix them, our government simply finds another piece of spin to re-label the problems and make them appear victories so that they can have a chance in future elections.
Right now the British government is committed to spending its way out of the present economic disasters and there is probably a good deal of sense in this as a general principle. However, wouldn’t it be great if just for once the money was spent on the infrastructure projects the country so desperately needs and deserves.
What a shambles of misleading liars this government is, and what a pity that their opposition is shaping up to be equally incompetent.
Many of you will have noticed that this trend has continued and flowered with a whole selection of Big Brother type re-naming that has legitimized a million small cuts into the democratic fabric of our evolved societies.
Now we don’t have terrorists as the media have re-branded them freedom fighters if they find their views acceptable politically and morally, this despite the fact that they might behead some kidnap victims, now recast as prisoners as if this were a legitimate action, or blow up some children as if a 4 or 5 year old is a combatant.
The list of such anomalies is virtually endless and angers so many with rival views that there are many of us, myself included, who have simply stopped watching certain television stations or reading certain newspapers or magazines. Of course this devalues legitimate debate because we no longer put out trust in factual statements put out by the opposition’s media depending on our view.
I was having a fairly important economic debate with an economist yesterday and I quoted some statistics I had gathered the previous day from the fairly left of center Guardian newspaper. Their reaction was to reach for what they considered the more authorative Economist magazine to double check these “facts”. This is a very dangerous trend that shows itself in many ways.
Yesterday it was revealed that certain UK police authorities had mis-reported various crime statistics. Their contention was that they had got the total crime figures correct, but had under estimated the total number in the serious crime column as required by their statistical analysis. However, they went on, the figures they had given did tally with the method used by the courts to calculate these figures, Therefore, in an age where we are already very worried by the seeming rise in crime figures in this country we are told, on the one hand, that the figures were actually considerably worse than those previously listed, but don’t worry, the number of actual crimes committed has really decreased; really?
In the same time frame we were authoritively informed by the government that they have education at the very top of their agenda, and that this is an area of growing achievement. At the same time they abandoned almost their entire testing methodology after insisting it was adopted for the last years of their administration.
We all know of similar financial, health and defense issues to add to our litany of woe. And, instead of addressing the issues and trying to fix them, our government simply finds another piece of spin to re-label the problems and make them appear victories so that they can have a chance in future elections.
Right now the British government is committed to spending its way out of the present economic disasters and there is probably a good deal of sense in this as a general principle. However, wouldn’t it be great if just for once the money was spent on the infrastructure projects the country so desperately needs and deserves.
What a shambles of misleading liars this government is, and what a pity that their opposition is shaping up to be equally incompetent.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
BloggingForTheRepossessed
I had a bad feeling about the property market long before it became fashionable to do so. This was because I saw the beginnings of the collapse of the sub prime mortgage business in the States at first hand.
Yesterday I checked out the local property market by popping my head into the door of a couple of estate agents (realtors) and they confirmed what we all know. There’s virtually nothing good to report, with sales now a pathetic percentage of last year’s size and prices tumbling.
More scary was the news one of them shared in which he told me that the lenders are repossessing the defaulting properties much faster than previously. He felt these repossessions are, in some instances, a first rather than last resort. In his small local agency he had been given 4 repossessed homes to sell this week, whereas he used to get, perhaps 1 per month last year. This is an alarming rise, made more so by the fact that the agent told me he and the lenders know he has no realistic chance of selling these properties in the present market conditions. Ask yourself the question, so if you repossess the property but can’t sell it, who is benefiting?
This morning I had the opportunity to listen to BBC radio 4 at breakfast. The discussion revolved around the various views as to whether there was a purpose for blogging, now, or in the future.
The usual arguments were trotted out which I shall précis by stating the obvious, we write because we have to, its in our bloodstreams, and the upshot should be that in doing so we communicate to others our personal views.
Sometimes, like yesterday, a writer, using this medium just wants to share a mood, in that case, joy and happiness to lighten the general gloom, and sometimes, like today, to warn of some impending peril, and to make sure my audience is aware of the danger.
One of the major catastrophes of modern times is coming to pass, and its being misunderstood and relatively relegated in importance on our news among the welter of horrible economic news. I am addressing the issue of home repossessions. Let’s examine that sentence again, we are talking about taking away people’s homes, not a few, not hundreds, not thousands, but if this slide continues it could be hundreds of thousands.
We cannot let this tragedy happen, we must not allow it!
The main reason I make this statement so emphatically is not because I care any more than any of you about the individuals and families affected, because no one wants to see people suffer arbitrarily. No, although this is terrible, more awful will be the ramifications to our societies and countries if we allow a new underclass to develop. This will be the inevitable result if hundreds of thousands of people are to be effectively made homeless.
The same people will, to a very large extent feel disaffected and disenfranchised, cheated and abused. They will be angry, and a great many of their number will suffer social and educational disadvantage from this starting point. An increased and growing number of the dispossessed to support, nurture and assist would thus burden the remainder of the population.
Ironically the property market collapse has come at the precise moment when we require more housing to meet the growing population needs. Whereas we should be finding ways to encourage house building start ups we find ourselves with some of the lowest ever recorded numbers.
The government has again made the right noises about keeping people in their homes as much as possible and has issued a directive to the courts to make sure they point the mortgage companies towards this end. In practical terms this means that they are now going to be compelled to write a couple of letters to the people in arrears and make a phone call or two. It doesn’t mean directing the courts to put a stop to all repossessions for a hiatus period, of let’s say 6 months. That is what this situation demands.
Many of my readers will be reaching for their electronic pens to send me a message condemning me for not pointing out that a great many defaulters got themselves into this situation and therefore, being responsible for their own actions they should have to deal with the consequences. There are, obviously, some people that fall into that category. While protecting the innocent victims of global economic catastrophe some of the indolent and crafty will, by definition crawl through the cracks like such people generally do. But right now there is a greater good that must be served, even if it means some of these social cockroaches surviving to be found out another day.
However, and we must not lose sight of this, the population did not suddenly sprout a tail and become indolent and devilish. The lenders encouraged, in fact enticed borrowers to take up their totally irresponsible offers of funds that could never be repaid if any of the economic circumstances prevalent at the time changed. And they changed big time! People are beginning to lose their jobs, loans are no longer available, and property values have plummeted. As a result you have the iniquitous situation in which, in many instances, as low cost, fixed rate interest mortgages fall due they can only be replaced by variable rated principal and interest mortgages. This can mean an increase in cost of double at exactly the same moment when the property in question goes into negative equity! That is an insupportable conundrum for any homeowner and the natural inclination will be for them to simply give their keys to the mortgagor and walk away.
If you take a moral stance on irresponsible borrowing how about taking an equally moral position on irresponsible lending that created the situation. And, following this logical yellow brick road, how about blaming the government and FSA for failing to stop it, in fact encouraging this lunacy?
Again I repeat, we cannot let this property eviction campaign of rampant repossessions to happen or we will all suffer a terrible a whole series of long-term consequences.
It would be to our huge advantage to find ways to keep all these families in their homes over the next two to three years and stop these hugely damaging outcomes before they begin. It’s vital that we act now to prevent total property market disintegration fracturing the cohesion of our societies long term. If we take a longer, more enlightened view it will benefit everyone, not least all the families who will otherwise be out on our streets this winter.
Yesterday I checked out the local property market by popping my head into the door of a couple of estate agents (realtors) and they confirmed what we all know. There’s virtually nothing good to report, with sales now a pathetic percentage of last year’s size and prices tumbling.
More scary was the news one of them shared in which he told me that the lenders are repossessing the defaulting properties much faster than previously. He felt these repossessions are, in some instances, a first rather than last resort. In his small local agency he had been given 4 repossessed homes to sell this week, whereas he used to get, perhaps 1 per month last year. This is an alarming rise, made more so by the fact that the agent told me he and the lenders know he has no realistic chance of selling these properties in the present market conditions. Ask yourself the question, so if you repossess the property but can’t sell it, who is benefiting?
This morning I had the opportunity to listen to BBC radio 4 at breakfast. The discussion revolved around the various views as to whether there was a purpose for blogging, now, or in the future.
The usual arguments were trotted out which I shall précis by stating the obvious, we write because we have to, its in our bloodstreams, and the upshot should be that in doing so we communicate to others our personal views.
Sometimes, like yesterday, a writer, using this medium just wants to share a mood, in that case, joy and happiness to lighten the general gloom, and sometimes, like today, to warn of some impending peril, and to make sure my audience is aware of the danger.
One of the major catastrophes of modern times is coming to pass, and its being misunderstood and relatively relegated in importance on our news among the welter of horrible economic news. I am addressing the issue of home repossessions. Let’s examine that sentence again, we are talking about taking away people’s homes, not a few, not hundreds, not thousands, but if this slide continues it could be hundreds of thousands.
We cannot let this tragedy happen, we must not allow it!
The main reason I make this statement so emphatically is not because I care any more than any of you about the individuals and families affected, because no one wants to see people suffer arbitrarily. No, although this is terrible, more awful will be the ramifications to our societies and countries if we allow a new underclass to develop. This will be the inevitable result if hundreds of thousands of people are to be effectively made homeless.
The same people will, to a very large extent feel disaffected and disenfranchised, cheated and abused. They will be angry, and a great many of their number will suffer social and educational disadvantage from this starting point. An increased and growing number of the dispossessed to support, nurture and assist would thus burden the remainder of the population.
Ironically the property market collapse has come at the precise moment when we require more housing to meet the growing population needs. Whereas we should be finding ways to encourage house building start ups we find ourselves with some of the lowest ever recorded numbers.
The government has again made the right noises about keeping people in their homes as much as possible and has issued a directive to the courts to make sure they point the mortgage companies towards this end. In practical terms this means that they are now going to be compelled to write a couple of letters to the people in arrears and make a phone call or two. It doesn’t mean directing the courts to put a stop to all repossessions for a hiatus period, of let’s say 6 months. That is what this situation demands.
Many of my readers will be reaching for their electronic pens to send me a message condemning me for not pointing out that a great many defaulters got themselves into this situation and therefore, being responsible for their own actions they should have to deal with the consequences. There are, obviously, some people that fall into that category. While protecting the innocent victims of global economic catastrophe some of the indolent and crafty will, by definition crawl through the cracks like such people generally do. But right now there is a greater good that must be served, even if it means some of these social cockroaches surviving to be found out another day.
However, and we must not lose sight of this, the population did not suddenly sprout a tail and become indolent and devilish. The lenders encouraged, in fact enticed borrowers to take up their totally irresponsible offers of funds that could never be repaid if any of the economic circumstances prevalent at the time changed. And they changed big time! People are beginning to lose their jobs, loans are no longer available, and property values have plummeted. As a result you have the iniquitous situation in which, in many instances, as low cost, fixed rate interest mortgages fall due they can only be replaced by variable rated principal and interest mortgages. This can mean an increase in cost of double at exactly the same moment when the property in question goes into negative equity! That is an insupportable conundrum for any homeowner and the natural inclination will be for them to simply give their keys to the mortgagor and walk away.
If you take a moral stance on irresponsible borrowing how about taking an equally moral position on irresponsible lending that created the situation. And, following this logical yellow brick road, how about blaming the government and FSA for failing to stop it, in fact encouraging this lunacy?
Again I repeat, we cannot let this property eviction campaign of rampant repossessions to happen or we will all suffer a terrible a whole series of long-term consequences.
It would be to our huge advantage to find ways to keep all these families in their homes over the next two to three years and stop these hugely damaging outcomes before they begin. It’s vital that we act now to prevent total property market disintegration fracturing the cohesion of our societies long term. If we take a longer, more enlightened view it will benefit everyone, not least all the families who will otherwise be out on our streets this winter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
